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

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Sat Oct 16 03:44:42 BST 2010

On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:neroute2 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com
>     <mailto:ian.dees at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more
>     sense but
>     > isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?
>     No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas
>     officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county
>     roads.
> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* 
> or ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for 
> network=us_route/state_route/county_route or similar). For example the 
> "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in our tags. If it's an 
> interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest network=interstate 
> but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the renderer can add 
> the "I-" if it wants to.
i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
its own, separate tag.

i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
route involves using the actual county name, e.g.


rather than a more generic CO, CR, CH or what have you, and i
find i can't really argue against that. using the generic value means
you can't distinguish between CR 1 in Albany County and CR 1 in the
adjacent Rensselaer County based on the network and ref tags.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101015/93a0ace5/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list