[Tagging] Potential proposal for more detail in old_ref=*?

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Feb 28 11:17:44 UTC 2017


2017-02-27 23:21 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> For OpenStreetMap, one key component of "conflict avoidance" is our rule
> of on-the-ground verifiability. With some very well defined exceptions
> (e.g. administrative boundaries), we only map things that yuo can verify
> by going there and looking. So if two people disagree whether the road
> is called A or B, you just go there and look at the road sign (or send
> someone to look, or check Mapillary or OpenStreetCam if you're lucky).
>



+1
regarding the tag: "old_ref", here's my usecase.
The maintenance of specific roads around here get's shifted from time to
time from one goverment body to another, e.g. from the national body to a
regional body, and this implies also that the refs change. Now while this
would in theory require all signs to be changed, in practise it can happen
that signs get not changed or get partially changed (even after 15 years
you can still find a significant amount of old signs in some places, even
half and more of the signs).

There are several possibilities and this is how we deal with it:

1.
signs (and milestones etc.) not changed at all:
- current (official) ref (not signed) gets into the "offical_ref" tag
- the signed ref (not valid but the only present) gets into the "ref" tag
(because this is what you see when you go there)

2.
parts of the signs changed/new signs added but old signs remaining:
- current official ref gets tagged in "ref"
- former ref (still partially signed) goes in "old_ref"

3.
all signs changed, old signs removed
only "ref" is tagged.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170228/16dd3ec2/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list