[Tagging] Making public transit tagging orthogonal across the map

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 3:03 PM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Re: " route numbers are not names"
>
> We have 82nd Avenue in Portland, and "First Street" is almost as common a
> name as "Main Street".
>

Sure, but at least around the time I left, they were in the process of
changing Northeast/Southeast 82nd Avenue in Portland to
"Northeast/Southeast Avenue of Roses", so 82nd Avenue would fit in an
"old_name=*" value properly.

I also get that 1st Street is a valid name.  Thing is, 1st Street is not a
route number.  Granted it's fairly subjective but it's also pretty obvious
what applies to a route and what applies to a way.


> If you live on CA-263 outside of Yreka your address is something like
> "3700 Highway 263" and you tell people to take "highway two-sixty-three" to
> get to your house so isn't the name of your road "Highway 263"?
>

I'm also of the opinion that your address is not indicative of a street
name.  The name of the street doesn't need to agree with the street
address, literally at all.

Case in point, I'll go with a landmark I know offhand where the street name
and the address definitely don't agree.  Skateworld Sapulpa.  From memory
it's address is something like 9661 New Sapulpa Road.  Except there's no
9600 block of New Sapulpa Road on the ground.  What's the road in front of
that skating rink?  Officer Larry W. Cantrell and Mister Charles L.
Cantrell Memorial Highway.

I honestly hate to keep using this as an example but it's a particularly
memorable one.  And it comes up a lot, go out to Coweta, OK and there's a
lot of "Highway 51" addresses that are on "Doctor William R Bright Memorial
Highway".  addr:street=* might actually be a ref.  addr:street=* is
Absolutely Not indicative of the road name.  Granted, the middle of North
America is prone to extreme examples now, but it's not like it wasn't
before...in my life time my domicile on the 2500 block of East 88th Street
was addressed as a rural box and rural route number that had literally
nothing to do with the street name or distance from the city origin (think
like "Box 1234 rural route 5678"), I honestly forget what the old address
from the 1960s was but we still get mail addressed to long-dead tenants
with an address like that.


> While I can understand defining a route as separate from the road itself,
> I think it should be remembered that most roads and streets (which we map
> as ways with highway=primary/secondary/etc) have a name, even if that name
> is similar to the reference number.
>

They don't, always, though.  That's why noname=yes is a perfectly valid
tag. If you think "Highway 64" is a name for a highway, then, no, you're
absolutely wrong in a definite sense; noname=yes applies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210101/1339d29e/attachment-0001.htm>