[Talk-GB] 'C' class roads references.

WebMaster@Killyfole.org.uk webmaster at killyfole.org.uk
Sat Aug 4 02:03:13 UTC 2018


I don't understand the logic of doing this?

Surely we map for what is there on the ground, not how it renders?  If a road 
has a reference number or a name, surely it is up to the render if it should 
show that information or not, not how we tag it in the database?

In my particular area I have people "helicopting in" to remove the C and U 
numbers off the roads, just because they don't like the way it renders!  But 
the fact is that none of the rural roads have signs giving the name, so just 
because my local council can't agree on putting up signs on the road I live 
on, it shouldn't have a name on OSM?

Again in my area this is the reason OpenStreetMap is gaining a lot of ground 
compared to other maps, because it shows the road names and reference numbers 
which are useful for locals and people trying to find their way around.  For 
example, the local media will give a list of road names and reference numbers 
during times of flood to indicate what roads locals should avoid.  There are 
no other comparable maps which show this information, only OSM and a lot of 
people now use OSM because of that.

Just because a local authority doesn't signpost something, does not mean it 
doesn't exist or isn't useful to local people.

Just my two cents on the this, and I would very strongly object to this being 
carried out in County Fermanagh.

KDDA




On Saturday, 4 August 2018 00:47:20 IST Dave F wrote:
> Hi
> 
> After many discussions over the years about the referencing of 'C' class
> roads there appeared to be a general consensus to keep them in the
> database but provide a unique tag to allow them not to be rendered.
> 
> This is a list of the discussions (there maybe others):
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-May/011632.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-March/014555.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-April/014788.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2014-August/016392.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017390.html
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-May/017414.html
> 
> However this task was never undertaken. I decided to grab the bull by
> the horns.
> 
> I used variations of this Overpass query within JOSM to find the
> numerous 'C' refs keys (listed below) tagged to the different road
> classification.
> I uploaded in batches split by geography &/or tag values to make it
> easier for me to verify
> I used detailed changeset descriptions to make it easier to rectify if
> needed. If you spot any errors please let me know.
> 
> [maxsize:2073741824];
> area(id:3600058447,3600058437,3600058446); // England, Wales, Scotland
> //[bbox:{{bbox}}];
>    way[highway=*highway classification"][~ref~"^C[0-9]{1,4}$"] (area);
> //out tags;
> //out center;
> (._;>;); out meta;
> 
> *Various keys used for 'C' refs:
> (listed most popular down)
> * ref
> official_ref
> admin_ref
> admin:ref
> wcc_ref
> highway_ref
> designation
> offical_ref
> int_ref
> unsigned_ref
> reference
> local_ref
> 
> *Highway classes with 'C' refs:*
> **(listed most popular down)**
> tertiary (+_link)
> unclassified
> trunk (+_link)
> residential (error?)
> service (error?)
> pedestrian (error? Roads converted to pedestrian, but still classified?)
> track (error/prow_ref?)
> secondary (+_link)
> primary
> 
> I've amended them to *'highway_authority_ref*'. It was discussed in the
> May '15 thread where it was felt official_ref or admin_ref wasn't
> specific enough. Feel free to discuss here if you have strong objections
> to it. If there's a consensus to change it's quite easy now they're all
> under a single tag.
> 
> Note I didn't include Northern Ireland as I'm unsure whether they're
> signed on the ground or not. Is anyone able to verify?
> 
> These are the trunk, primary & secondary roads which previously either
> had a ref or highway_authority_ref:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AM7
> 
> Similarly these are the pedestrian, service, residential & track
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AM8
> 
> These still have 'ref' tags: proposed, abandoned, construction, path,
> footway & cycleway; possibly copy paste errors or should be prow_ref?:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/AMc
> 
> Please amend if you have local knowledge & believe any of the above are
> an error.
> 
> Cheers
> DaveF







More information about the Talk-GB mailing list