[Talk-us] Time to retire ref= on ways?

[Zeke Farwell]

Yes!  I agree 100%.

Zeke


On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> It's time to retire ref=* on highway=* ways to describe attributes
> of the overlying route instead of the physical attributes of the way
> itself.  Using the ref= tag on ways to describe routes simply
> creates more problems than it solves for many reasons.
>
> * The ref=* tag on a way is describing properties of a route that
> is using the way, not a property of the way itself.
>
> * Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would
> actually be physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on
> ways describing the overlying route instead of the way itself,
> makes it impossible to properly describe these attributes if ref= on
> a way is describing the route above the way, not the way itself.
>
> * The ref= tag as defined for ways now includes more than the ref,
> but also the network.  ncn_ref, int_ref, etc were created as an
> attempt to describe network references uniquely, but there aren't
> *_ref keys for every possible network already in play.
>
> * The US has two federal highway networks, each state has it's own
> highway network, and counties and cities have the option for their
> own local networks.  That's at minimum 52+ *_ref keys that would be
> needed to describe each network uniquely...for the US alone!  And
> we're not even into transit or other routes that might use the way!
>
> * Munging the modifier=, network= and ref= tags provided by
> relations into a single do-all ref= tag creates more problems than
> it solves, particularly for formatting.  It also creates
> hard-to-answer questions for renderers and parsers.
>
> * Multiple routes, particularly when they are involved in multiple
> networks, creates unmanageable way ref= tags. It also makes it
> more difficult to describe attributes that belong to the route,
> not the way itself (such as which direction it's going, whether it's
> a bypass, business, toll or other sort of route, etc).
>
> Given that we have route relations, and have had them for some time
> now, perhaps now is the time to:
>
> * put ref= information pertaining to the route that travels on the
> way to a relation for that route.  Provide facilities to search by
> network and ref on relations.
>
> * Actively remove ref= tags describing routes from ways that have
> route relations already:  Let's kill this dinosaur.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100308/5fda5f44/attachment.html>