[Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
erringtona at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 05:49:57 GMT 2012
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' <vidthekid at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2012 12:25 AM, "Andrew Errington" <erringtona at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
>> > 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.
> Who would make a renderer that renders the value of a key like
Probably no-one, because it's not documented.
> A roadgeek probably, but I think such a rendering
> stylesheet should differentiate between signed and unsigned refs. Anyway,
> using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of
> Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to
It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it
does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign
> Richard didn't say he uses that key *because* it's not rendered; he
> uses it because it makes sense. The fact that it's not rendered on
> general-purpose maps justifies the view that the tag won't cause problems.
It's not rendered because nobody knows about it. There are only 36
instances of ref:unsigned in the whole world, so it probably was not a
good example to use. Anyway, shouldn't it be reg_ref (Regional
reference) instead? Or a relation?
More information about the Tagging