[Tagging] addr:street for routes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Aug 1 17:02:09 UTC 2020

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 12:19 AM Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com> wrote:

> On 7/31/20 14:29, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Name is only the name.  Names are not refs.  For the above example,
> > ref=NY 214, noname=yes would be the right way.
> How about the stretch of FM 1960 from I-45 or so going east into Humble?
> Addresses on it are "xxxx FM 1960 East", though I think it used to be
> signed as "Humble-Huffman Road" even though nobody puts that in the
> addresses anymore. I currently have name=FM 1960 East alongside ref=FM
> 1960 (and maybe an alt_name=* too). (For those outside of Texas, FM or
> RM is like a lower class of state highway called Farm-/Ranch-To-Market
> Roads.)

For the way:

name=Humble-Huffman Road
ref=FM 1960

For the address:
addr:street=FM 1960 East

I'm on the side that name=* should match what's in addr:street=*, even
> if there's some duplicity, but maybe there should be some other tag to
> say perhaps the name shouldn't be rendered on (most) visual maps and/or
> read out separately from the ref in navigation software.

Problem is, that does not necessarily match the ground truth.  In reality,
a lot of addresses have a street name that radically departs from what the
street is signposted as, particularly if the street is part of a
numbered route.  It's common because there's only so much you can cram on
an envelope and it's often shorter and easier to scrawl out "Hwy 12"
instead of the street name than whatever the highway department named it.

Plus, existing schemes of *not* reproducing the ref in the name already
solves the problem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200801/410f8b0c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list