[Talk-GB] [OSM-talk] Improving ref=* documentation

[Andy Townsend]

On 05/08/2021 13:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-GB wrote:
> Would it be correct to describe it as covering the same as unsigned_ref
> "Indicates a route number that has assigned ref that is not 
> prominently signposted with
> a reassurance marker."
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned_ref 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:unsigned_ref#Usage>
>
>
The wiki page for unsigned_ref seems to define it as a ref that _is_ 
signed, just not very well, which is somewhat confusing.

The original version of the page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=prev&oldid=1095857

suggests that it was used a lot in the US, which makes sense because a 
single road there can be part of both SR123 and SR345. One of these may 
be signed, one not.

In GB, with regular highway numbering* (M, A, B and whatever highway 
authorities assign that doesn't get signed) that doesn't happen**.  In 
many parts of the world ref signage may be below the standard that's 
common in Central Europe and 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Barely_signed_road_reference_code.jpg 
might actually be a "better sign than average" there.

You added "... or with barely visible signs" at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:unsigned_ref&direction=next&oldid=2114371 
, and that significantly changes that pages meaning to no longer reflect 
how the tag was previously used.

That said, some way of expressing "there are signs here, but they are 
not very good" would be useful - but that's surely not "unsigned_ref"

(somewhat offtopic example and question follows)

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999 is a long distance path 
around the Yorkshire Moors, that seems to have originated from a book.  
Normally that's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be in OSM 
("someone wrote a book once" routes are basically one up from "my 
personal favorite route around this area"), but in this case it is 
signed - at least once, at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/7235773122 
.  That one sign currently clears the threshold to get it shown on 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=17&lat=54.295465&lon=-0.83391 
, alongside the extremely well-signed Tabular Hills Walk.

What tagging (apart from e.g. "unsigned_ref", which I don't think is a 
good answer here) have people used when signage exists and is 
verifiable, but isn't really good enough to navigate by?

Best Regards,

Andy


* Ignoring E roads which are never** signed in the UK, and things like 
tourist routes, and cycle and walking routes etc.

** at least I can't think of a single valid exception.  Any in GB that 
are tagged like that are probably in error.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210805/e7d447d7/attachment-0001.htm>