[Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
erringtona at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 04:24:18 GMT 2012
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:
> On 10/23/12 9:15 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote:
>> If a motorway link is part of a route (one needs to actually drive on the
>> link to continue on the route) then I put the ref for that route on the
>> link. Otherwise, no ref tag.
> i agree.
> by convention, ref tags get rendered on the map and users of the map
> expect to see some sort of clear signage relating to the rendered content.
> this is why i don't put New York State Reference Route numbers in the
> ref tag, i put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered.
Isn't that simply tagging for the renderer? And doesn't this just mean
"I put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered...
...by this particular renderer.
If something is useful it should be tagged. If it *is* tagged, we
should have a consensus on the tag's meaning and correct usage. If it
can be easily derived from somewhere else, then IMHO it shouldn't be
I think that a link road is not the motorway itself, and therefore
should not have a ref tag. If you are driving, and you are on the
link road, are you on the motorway? I say 'no', you are on a road
leading to the motorway (or from the motorway to another road).
I suppose you could programmatically determine the class of road and
know that if ref is present, and highway=motorway then it means 'we
are on the motorway'. If ref is present and highway=motorway_link
then it means we are leaving or entering the motorway. Actually,
having just re-read what I wrote it means we should only tag ref on
link roads leading *to* the motorway.
I suppose I am arguing both sides. I still maintain that a little
redundancy is good, but if we can easily derive something then we
shouldn't tag it. Otherwise we create a maintenance problem, and a
problem when one tag is updated but not its (redundant) counterpart.
More information about the Tagging