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

[Jay Turner]

> 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"

Perhaps "ref:signed=poorly"?

I'm not a big fan of using "*:signed=*" with the value of what's on the
sign like Colin suggested yesterday, it goes against how the *:signed
namespace has been used so far. Perhaps betters tags would not "not:ref=*"
or "was:ref=*" for when a roads ref changes but signs don't get updated
immediately.

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021, 14:00 Andy Townsend, <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210806/46356733/attachment-0001.htm>