[Talk-us] [OSM-newbies] Fwd: Re: Re: Time to retire ref= on ways?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:36:36 -0500, Zeke Farwell wrote:

> Part of Paul's original email:
> 
> * 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.
> 
> 
> I think your right of ways that do not span more than one way fall into
> the same category as bridges and tunnels mentioned above.  If there is a
> reference number specific to a single way then it makes perfect sense to
> tag it with ref=.  However, when there is a highway spanning hundreds or
> perhaps thousands of ways (or even just ten) it does not make sense to
> tag every single member way with the reference number of the route when
> it could be put in a route relation.

I'm not so keen on using ref= for two different things; even if a route 
is quite small, I think having a route relation is better for describing 
route data.