[Talk-GB] C roads again
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Wed Aug 13 20:19:37 UTC 2014
On 13 August 2014 18:14, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 August 2014 12:38, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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).
>
> No, it really doesn't. The number times the average person needs to
> cross-reference the map to official documents in their lifetime tends
> to zero. On the other hand, the number of times people will look at an
> OSM map and get confused by road references not shown anywhere else
> that they will ever see - well, that's non-zero.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Certainly in my neck of
the woods, there's been some major Highways Agency works going on,
which have referred to an affected road only as the C616. Apart from
OSM's main map, I'm not sure how else affected people would be able to
find out which road it referred to.
> Imagine an argument saying that we should show the Companies House
> registration numbers for all shops. Or the VOA Business rates
> reference numbers for shops. Or both. Now imagine yourself saying,
> with a straight face, 'oh, these are useful when you need to
> crossreference information with government sources. The fact that they
> aren't signed on the ground - and aren't otherwise useful to the
> general public - should be easy for you to get used to'.
Those are pretty poor examples I think, and not really equivalent at
all -- in those cases any official sources would almost certainly
include other information such as the business name and/or address as
well as the reference number. Thus it wouldn't be necessary to have
the number itself displayed to do any cross-referencing. In the case
of C roads, often the number is the only name/reference given. Also
any clutter from C roads is significantly less that what you'd get
from additional references attached to shops. And I've already said
that I think the clutter would tip the balance the other way for
highway=unclassified, residential, etc.
Out of interest, what would you advocate doing about minor road names
that are officially assigned, but aren't signed anywhere on the
ground? Should those be removed from the map to to avoid 'confusing'
people too?
Robert.
--
Robert Whittaker
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list