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

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/08/2021 10:23, David Woolley wrote:
> On 06/08/2021 06:57, Jay Turner wrote:
>> Perhaps "ref:signed=poorly"?
>>
>
> That's subjective and OSM doesn't collect subjective information.
>
What would be a better alternative?

Perhaps I should have mentioned previously that I've walked 50-70% of 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8450999 which prompted the 
question and so therefore could probably calculate an "average number of 
guideposts per kilometer" or similar for those sections of it.

As an aside I've certainly noticed that "traditionally unsigned" routes 
around here like the Lyke Wake Walk 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1996318 and the Eastern bit of 
Wainwright's Coast to Coast 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7336319 are significantly more 
signed (over the last few years or so) than they used to be. I've no 
idea how widespread that is elsewhere.

Best Regards,

Andy