[Tagging] Unsigned portions of signed routes

[James Mast]

Well, here's an example of how I dealt with US-19 Truck over here in Pittsburgh were it isn't signed on I-279 or I-376 except inside of the I-376 exit 69 mess on the south side of the Fort Pitt Tunnels.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/571349 (signed)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3078417 (unsigned portion combined with the signed portion)


It's not the best solution, but it's all that's possible right now and still keeps a relation for the entire route since there is 1 sign on I-279 that does tell people to follow both I-279 South & I-376 West for US-19 Truck [1] since PennDOT doesn't sign it along those two routes.


[1] - StreetView (but I do have personal pics of it): https://goo.gl/maps/m4ZQb2M6Xr72

________________________________
From: Albert Pundt <roadsguy99 at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:10:58 PM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tagging] Unsigned portions of signed routes

How are unsigned segments of signed routes supposed to be mapped relation-wise? For example, PA 235 in Perry County, PA has a short unsigned concurrency with PA 17 going down into Liverpool, where both routes end at US 11/15. However, 235 signage stops where it first intersects PA 17. Obviously the segment of 17 should be given the "unsigned_ref=PA 235" tag, but what about the relation? Routing software that relies on relations would probably assume 235 is signed here, so what's the proper way to deal with this? Create a separate relation for the unsigned portion? Just don't add the PA 235 relation to 17 at all?

--Albert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170531/abfde874/attachment-0001.html>