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

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue Oct 19 21:53:01 BST 2010

On 10/19/2010 03:27 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
> So to get back to the basics of this thread... I think we can all
> agree that we should (and are) using relations to represent highway
> routes and that we need to get renderer support for route relations


> So then the question is what tags to use on relations.

All documented long ago at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route (especially 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Tags )

> There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
> throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"

Yup, there’s debate about that.

I’d prefer something like US:KS:CTH or US:KS:COUNTY.  Or even US:KS:CR, 
though I don’t like the two-character code as it looks just like a state 

IMO, connecting the road to the county should be done with a relation 
(super-relation actually) between the route and the boundary of the 
applicable county.

> I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag
> on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a
> couple of times - for example "name=KS 18"

It is incorrect on a route relation unless it does have a name, like 
“The Joe Q. Bloggs Memorial Parkway” or something like that.

> The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in
> editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when
> displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part
> of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of
> tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it.

Exactly.  The tools should be improved.  The interface for relations in 
josm (not sure about potlatch) is atrocious.

> Let's focus on getting a concrete system in place that we
> can go beat the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as
> a US community come out with a solid plan and say "we need this now"
> people will listen.

We’ve had one for a long time.  What’s needed is for someone to do the 
hard (“trivial” as Anthony would say) work of actually making use of the 

—Alex Mauer “hawke”

More information about the Talk-us mailing list