[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 21:50:02 BST 2010


On 10/18/2010 03:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer<hawke at hawkesnest.net>  wrote:
>> On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> In most states they at least mention the name of the county (though we
> obviously wouldn't do this on maps); Wisconsin may be alone in leaving
> it off. Some counties (usually those that started signing routes
> before the now-standard blue pentagon was created) have very different
> designs, especially in New York (example:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_County_Route_30_NY.svg - for

Good to know.  If they used the same pattern everywhere, just changing 
the name, I would still be in favor of simply recording that it was a 
county highway, but since different counties within a state use entirely 
different signs I stand corrected.  It is useful to have the county name 
in the network tag.

Perhaps it would be useful to make a wiki page documenting which states 
and counties have “non-standard” signs?

—Alex Mauer “hawke”




More information about the Talk-us mailing list