[talk-ph] NHN 2 Luzon
emmanuel.sambale at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 08:45:36 UTC 2015
As far as I know, Rally is just editing the route relation and not the
actual road name in the way.
As you pointed out, the way its rendered in OSM default map is that
the ref tag becomes more prominent than the actual name (especially at
low zoom levels).
My personal preference is to use the what's on the ground in the "name" tag.
BTW, it is good this is being discussed.
For reference, Rally shared what he is doing it the list:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Ronny Ager-Wick <ronny at ager-wick.com> wrote:
> I noticed Rally's recent update including MacArthur highway in NHN 2 Luzon:
> I assume this was due to some updated guidelines from DPWH or something.
> I noticed this because I had just meticulously updated the name of every
> segment of MacArthur Highway from San Fernando/Angeles Border to
> Angeles/Mabalacat border, and every single name I had fixed, as well as all
> the previous ones, had now disappeared. I updated the name manually working
> myself south until I realized something must be up (yes, I know, it takes a
> bit of time sometimes), and then I noticed the new relation, and I noticed
> that (probably) on every segment of this relation, the name had disappeared.
> Was it intentional to delete the name of every segment of the road now called
> "Route 2"?
> If not, there are probably a lot of other segments that needs its name restored.
> By the way, is "Manila North Road" another name for MacArthur Highway, or is
> MacArthur just a small part of it?
> As pointed out earlier, it used to be called R-9, which is a theoretical name
> only, as everyone refers to it - or at least the segment I'm familiar with -
> as MacArthur Highway. Now, it's suddenly called "2". Again, nobody who lives
> or works or drives along this road apart from maybe a few of us and some
> people at DPWH knows about this, yet the "2" label is the most prominent on a
> lot of maps, as it's defined by the ref tag in OSM. I regularly drive this
> route, and I have yet to see a single sign with either R-9 or 2 or N2 or
> whatever. Granted, there's probably not a single sign saying MacArthur Highway
> either, but that's the name people know.
> If you print a map and based on that ask people how to get to Route 2, N2, or
> having that ref displayed prominently is pointless.
> Do we map "ground truth" and use the references that are most useful to people
> (putting DPWH dream labels like "2" and "R-9" in nat_ref), or should we
> blindly follow official references, even if nobody else are actively using
> them and no signs indicate them?
> The latter means waiting for DPWH to put up signs, which could take 10 or 20
> years, if not eternity.
> Or shall we use both?
> Personally, I would set ref to "MacArthur;2" or "MacArthur;N2", set nat_ref to
> "2" and leave the name as the full name of the given road, regardless of route
> membership. This way we deal with both current and future needs.
> PS: I realize DPWH may be looking to build a route network like in Europe or
> America, and that's great. But until they have finished putting up the signs,
> it's meaningless. In Europe the E-roads are well known, and putting the E
> route number as a ref is completely logical, as every road in this network is
> marked with the route number after *every* intersection, plus every few km
> should there be no intersections for a while. In Europe, if they build a new
> improved road in the E-network, that road is marked as such before it is
> opened, and the old road is marked as something else (a regional route
> number), and all signs with the E-route number are removed from it overnight.
> I'd love that to be the case here, but until then, we need to consider what
> ref to actually use.
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
More information about the talk-ph