[Tagging] addr:street for routes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri Jul 31 19:30:42 UTC 2020


Given that it's not customary or advisable to reproduce ref in the name
field, kinda think that's not the worst policy for old_ref=* situations
that have no name, as well by extension, but that's a bit more of a grey
area still.

On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:14 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I agree.
>
> Proof of this is that a section of road which was formerly US Highway 99,
> but where the highway ref is now on a new bypass, will often by signed as
> “Old Highway 99”, so it’s reasonable to say that the name=* was “Highway
> 99” before.
>
> -Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:01 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 31. Jul 2020, at 18:25, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > But most of the ways in the route have no valid name. Segments were
>> > imported from TIGER with name=State Highway 214 but that's been removed
>> > in favor of ref=NY 214.
>>
>>
>> around here we keep both, no need to remove the name if it makes sense.
>> State Highway 214 looks like a reasonable name, especially outside of
>> builtup areas.
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200731/7f0175fb/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list