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

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Tue Oct 19 03:53:56 BST 2010

Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
>     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…
> This is a data project, not a renderer project. If the renderers aren't doing
> the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing.


Continuing to use ref= tags at all when we have relations that represent
a much cleaner way to tag roads is a terrible case of tagging for the
renderer.  I think it's premature to remove ref tags, but I don't see
any point in adding them to new ways, rather than just creating a

If the relations keep getting broken, we ought to fix the tools people
are using so it isn't as easy to break them.
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

More information about the Talk-us mailing list