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

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Mon Oct 18 21:22:04 BST 2010

On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> 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.

For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers 
can only handle ways for now…

Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin 
Highway 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have 
ref=10;66;39.  Not very useful for determining which is which.

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

I wouldn’t say it’s wrong.  “Unnecessary” probably, since county roads / 
highways / trunk highways don’t, as far as I know, have different signs 
within a state.

For the curious, I documented CTH for the county highway ref= prefix 
partly because I’m from Wisconsin, but mostly because the 
three-character designation is not likely to be mistaken for a state or 
country designation.  (I know it’s possible to have the renderer look at 
where the way is, but it's a hell of a lot simpler to just read the prefix)

—Alex Mauer “hawke”

More information about the Talk-us mailing list