[talk-au] Sturt highway

[John Smith]

--- On Fri, 21/8/09, BlueMM <bluemm1975-osm at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Maybe I'm a little confused, but given this discussion
> & looking at a recent
> change to the Australian Tagging Guidelines on the wiki,
> has the network/ref
> tagging changed from your original proposal? I thought the
> network tag was for
> removing the letter prefix from the number, but are we now
> doing network=A,
> ref=A1? Isn't this just the same as before but with an
> extra tag?

The problem here is we have 2 distinct systems, things like NH, NR, MR which aren't part of the reference, and then the alphanumeric system MABC which is part of the reference.

So the best I could think of in the case of MABC was to include it in both the ref and the network, I think in the UK they only have MABC so they don't have to consider anything else.

> I think this is why I am concerned about adding the addr:
> tags to the ref
> relations, is it not redundant data given that we have
> suburb boundaries, we
> know with reasonable certainty that a node is in what
> suburb/state/country? I
> see changes to the cycle route tagging guide says to
> potentially add all
> suburb/state/country tags. It's like adding is_in tags to
> all nodes/ways even
> though we have suburb boundaries (thanks again Franc!!).
> Is it some limitation of the mapnik styles that caused the
> US guys to create the
> similar tagging scheme? Ideally it could be solved with
> code instead of adding
> to the burden of tagging.

I have no idea if they have boundaries in place or not, so it might have caused this to exist, then again the same could be said for most addr:* tags.

> Also looking at the the text for the Route section of the
> Au tag guide page, I
> think it is too verbose & mixes guidelines with
> reasoning & thoughts. Given it's
> a wiki, I might work on wording and make some changes (kind
> of similar to the
> OpenSource mantra of stop whinging, show me some code). The
> gist of it is leave:
> * mention old & new shield system
> * tagging example
> * Highway Refs (but name it something like "Network Refs"
> or "Sign Shield Refs")

Go for it.

> Move "Minor Roads" sentence to the Naming Streets sections
> (since that is what
> it is).
> Remove the distinction between Major & Minor Highways
> tagging, to something
> simple like: If a named route & a numbered route follow
> the same ways, combine
> into a single relation. If they finish at different spots
> or take different
> paths, create a separate relation for the named &
> numbered route.
> Example of a combined:
>  name= Thingamajig Highway
>  network=C
>  ref=123
>  route=road
>  type=route

I've not done much with B & C routes, but there is a number of mismatched A routes that chop and change names, A3 in QLD for example starts at the junction of New England and Cunningham Highways north of Warwick, then that joins the D'Agular Highway for a bit and then follows the Burnett Highway all the way to Rockhampton.

The D'Agular Highway goes from S85 to NR17 to A3 and I'm not sure what happens after it stops being the A3 it wasn't tagged.

On the other hand NR38 is only the Gwydir highway except for small sections that it shares with the Newell and New England Highways.

I imagine some/most B&C routes may be a single segment effectively, except if there is bridges and it might be just as easy to tag the way as it would to create and tag a relation.