[Talk-us] "refs" describing routes instead of ways

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Mon Dec 20 21:19:27 GMT 2010


On 12/20/10 1:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 11:56 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> Also note http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/maps/control-maps/tulsa3.pdf
>> (inset 13) which has US 169 ending between the ramp and the overpass.
> I'm wondering why we still are trying the whole "describe the route on
> the way" method of handling the ref= tag on ways.  Very few roads in
> Oklahoma lack refs that belong to the ways (as exemplified in the
> control map above).  Using the ref= tag on the way to describe the
> reference of the route that travels over it doesn't make much sense,
> given that it takes the tag away from the way's ACTUAL reference number.
>   Oregon has a similar situation with state and county roads, and pretty
> much every bridge, so I'm lead to believe this is a problem for most
> (all?) of the country.
are these references from the control map visibly and prominently posted
on the ways in the "mythical" real world?

if so, it's reasonable to use them in ref tags. if not, then they should not
go in ref tags. most renderers will display them on the assumption that 
there
is some real signage displaying them; this will only confuse users. i 
have in
the past pondered whether we need something like

ref_admin:state=
ref_admin:county=

for these types of admin tags (NY and various NY counties have them
as well.)

richard




More information about the Talk-us mailing list