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

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Sat Oct 16 06:25:27 BST 2010

Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Phil! Gold <phil_g at pobox.com> wrote:
>> == "Some Interstates Show Exits—Others Don't" ==
>> This is really just a problem with map coverage, not tagging convention,
>> but I'd like to ask about consensus on name= and ref= tags for
>> motorway_junctions.  ref= is pretty obviously the exit number, but
>> although some wiki pages (Interstate Highways, in particular) say or imply
>> that everything on the exit sign should go into the name= tag (including
>> the junction road but also further destinations like towns and distant
>> roads).  I think it makes more sense to just have the junctioned road (or
>> really significant destination road, like when the junctioned road is
>> almost always just a means to get to another major road) in the name= tag
>> and use the destination sign relation for the other information.
>> Thoughts?
> I believe exit_to is for the text on the sign, and name is for an
> actual name *if one exists*. Often a toll road will have named
> interchanges, but this is rare otherwise.

Wouldn't it be a lot nicer to use destination relations to tag this?  A
motorway_junction node could be referred to in multiple destination
relations, one for each thing on the sign (for example: US 78, US 278, Main
Street, Wharf District).  The relations could refer to the route
relations, so we could get nicely drawn shield for Interstates and US

Along these lines, maybe we should talk about junction relations.  They
would be really useful for indicating which map features (traffic
signals, motorway junctions, etc) are really one logical entity, and
should be represented as such on the map at higher zoom levels.
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

More information about the Talk-us mailing list