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

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Wed Dec 22 07:22:35 GMT 2010


On 12/20/2010 03:19 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> 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?

The prominence of the signs vary depending on location.  In the
Oklahoma, these signs are quite visible white-on-green reflective
placards approximately the size of a numbered bike route sign or larger,
usually mounted at an easily seen location when the reference changes.
I've seen them on the turnpikes as well, though on the section of the
Creek Turnpike that spawned this question, I'm going to need a spotter
or a driver as I'm too busy watching traffic (and at certain parts of
the day trying to stay over the minimum limit) to pay attention to finer
detail.

In Oregon, these are found on the "HWY" line of maintenance markers, and
readily visible to slow moving or bicycle traffic (but difficult to read
at higher speeds due to poor letter size choice, as these signs also
generally include the route number you're on ("RTE") and what you're
crossing ("OVER" or "UNDER").

> 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.)

To me, that seems like a band-aid to the real problem, and that's trying
to describe attributes of a relation on a way instead of in the relation...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101222/4f25863b/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list