[Talk-GB] Road refs
davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
Wed Aug 29 22:50:51 UTC 2018
On 29/08/2018 20:44, Toby Speight wrote:
> 0> In article <fc640df8-7391-5fe8-049c-a61c64517b5b at btinternet.com>,
> 0> Dave F. <URL:mailto:davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> ("Dave") wrote:
> Dave> Point about OSM wiki: IMO giving multiple options for the same
> Dave> entity leads to confusion & errors so should be avoided.
> That's exactly what's problematic about "highways_authority_ref": it
> creates a tag that contains the same information as belongs in "ref".
> Based on the name, the similarity to ncn_ref and the like suggests a
> non-authoritative alternative identifier.
Let's deal with the last point first. Unsure how you could describe
'highways_authority_ref' as 'non-authoritative'.
'ncn_ref' isn't 'non-authoritative' or similar to it's a label given to
an assigned highway by Sustrans, many miles of which are maintained by
OK, main point: 'ref' was used almost from the start of OSM when Steve
C. mapped the first ways. As the database evolved it became clear 'ref'
was too ambiguous & so other 'ref' tags evolved. Please remember there
were no focus groups meetings laying out a pathway concept. OSM is a
truly organic development. Things change, evolve. As the database
becomes more detailed so the tags become more detailed. Contributors
should be expecting change & willing to adapt. Being fearful of change
is not a reason for the status-quo.
I've used 'highways_authority_ref' as it was suggested as a more
specific tag to the alternatives. As I said in my OP I'm wiling to amend
that, but only after I've amalgamated all the relevant tags & someone
comes up with a better alternative. So far no one has done so.
Getting all contributors to use 'highway_authority_ref' will be
problematic, in *exactly* the same way it is for so many other tags.
That is *not* a reason to not improve OSM's database.
General point to all: Others here & on private email appear to think I,
& I alone, conceived this proposal. I did not. This is clearly evident
from reading the links in my OP. If anyone wishes to criticize the
proposal, please have the common decency to base it on facts & evidence.
More information about the Talk-GB