[Talk-GB] C roads again

[Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)]

On 13 August 2014 12:19, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
> On 13/08/14 11:54, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
>
>> When it comes to U-numbers for unclassified roads, I can see that they
>> usually add unnecessary clutter to the map. So while they may be
>> useful to see at times, I'd be in favour of them not being displayed
>> on the default style. But I think this is a renderer issue -- perhaps
>> someone should submit a ticket to have ref=* not rendered on
>> highway=unclassified if there is a name=* present.
>
> You appear to be drawing some sort of distinction between C and U numbers
> here, and maybe that works for your authority, but I don't think it's in any
> way universal.

Yes that probably is tainted by the Local Authorities I'm most
familiar with. Perhaps a better way of thinking about it would be in
terms of the OSM classification. Where I talked about U-numbers, it
might be better to read it is any reference numbers on roads that are
not tagged as highway=tertiary or higher. And similarly C-numbers
would be any reference numbers present on highway=tertiary tagged
roads.

Regardless of how the numbers are tagged, I would still maintain that
the benefits of having reference numbers shown to users on
highway=tertiary roads (in terms of allowing them to cross-reference
the map to official documents) outweighs the drawbacks (extra
cluttering is minimal, and the fact that they're not signed on the
ground in the UK should be easy to get used to). However, I think the
extra drawback of increased cluttering tips the balance the other way
on highway=unclassified, and others (residential, service,
living_street, etc.).

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker