[Talk-GB] C roads again

[Colin Smale]

This sounds very sensible. Can/should it be extrapolated to cover other
cases where the signposting (or lack of it) of a road number contradicts
the official version? I am thinking specifically of B-roads which are
still officially classified as such, and indeed frequently rendered as
secondary (not just by OSM), where the road number was removed from the
signs years ago (probably to discourage traffic)? 

Example: 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/51.4083/0.2956 

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.409452,0.298958,3a,75y,234.44h,78.06t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s-0NCD5FN6g3rpCZLcqhXQA!2e0?hl=en


Highcross Road and Whitehill Road are both shown as B255, because that
is what they officially are. On-the-ground evidence is that they are
more tertiary (Whitehill Road) and "nasty windy country lane"
unclassified (Highcross Road) and there is no sign of "B255" on any
sign. Should we put B255 into official_ref here? 

--colin 

On 2014-08-13 00:58, Ed Loach wrote: 

> After previous discussions I've already changed the C road references that I mapped (from roadworks signs) to official_ref, so your suggestion seems sensible. I feel ref should be reserved for (permanently?) signposted references. 
> 
> Ed 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb [1]
 

Links:
------
[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20140813/075fc61a/attachment-0002.html>