[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Fri Oct 15 19:34:19 BST 2010


On 10/15/10 2:25 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> *
> Those are interesting examples.  Taking them in order, the Meadowbrook
> Parkway is part of the New York State Parkway System, which appears to me
> to be a subset of the state highway system, especially since it does have
> an (unsigned) highway reference number.  I'm not familiar enough with New
> York to make definitive calls on their numbering, but since more than half
> the state parkways don't have obvious reference text on their signs (just
> the name) and the rest have the full name in addition to one or two
> letters, I wouldn't tag ref= on any of them (since the actual reference
> number is unsigned).  Instead, I would treat it as a road that needed a
> custom shield, if any shield was rendered at all.  I'll note that Google,
> Bing, and Mapquest all appear to have punted on this; none of them renders
> any shield at all on it.
>
i agree that NYS reference route numbers should not go in the ref
tag unless they show up in actual signs (there are four cases i know
of where reference route numbers show up in signs, all are considered
errors but NYS DOT does not appear to be making an effort to correct
them by taking the signs down.)

what i do for the NYS parkway system is use letter codes that correspond
in a sensible way to what is on the sign, e.g.

ref=TSP

for the Taconic State Parkway, since the letters TSP are most prominent
on the shields.

richard




More information about the Talk-us mailing list