[Talk-GB] Absence of signs (was: Re: Using statutory 'list of streets' for mapping)
Jay Turner
jaynicholasturner at gmail.com
Wed Aug 4 11:33:24 UTC 2021
I agree that we should be using the `name:signed` and `ref:signed` tags
that has emerged in recent years. It's not documented very well and I'm
wondering if anybody here would be interested in helping towards a proposal
to establish the *:signed namespace for common keys / all keys.
Jay Turner
(he/him)
On Wed, 4 Aug 2021, 11:50 Andy Townsend, <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 04/08/2021 11:17, Paul Berry wrote:
>
> ... As such I would cross-reference with other signs on the ground,
> including the *absence* of signs you'd expect to be there,
>
> +1 to that.
>
> /me climbs back on hobby-horse again
>
> I'd also suggest tagging the _absence_ of a sign for a road name or road
> ref. If you're trying to use OSM for navigation, being told that you need
> to turn right onto "Futtock's End" is no use whatsoever if that name is
> does not exist on the ground.
>
> Personally I'd prefer "name:signed=no" over "unsigned=yes" as the latter
> doesn't say what is unsigned (there are 622 ref:signed=no in OSM
> worldwide). Taginfo also has 4869 name:signed=no and 2166 unsigned=yes .
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210804/dac16e73/attachment.htm>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list