[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 23:14:01 BST 2010

On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>> For example, Kansas highway 18:
>> type = route
>> route = road
>> network = US:KS
>> ref = 18
>> (optional?) symbol=* tag
> Also an optional wikipedia link.
>> There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
>> throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"
> The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two
> county roads apart which use the same number.  (Analogously, you
> wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?)

A relation with the boundary relation.  This could be done with US:STATE 
as well, but I think the use of the postal abbreviation for states is 
well-established while this is not the case for counties.

You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into 
the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed in 
once place.  (I know linking to such things is a little iffy though)

> I don't see any advantage to abbreviating the county name... that just
> seems like more effort for mappers, with no real payback.  (I certainly
> don't know abbreviations for all 159 counties in Georgia.)


> However, there are many stretches of road that are designated "Col. John
> Q Public Memorial Highway" or something like that.  It only applies to
> part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a
> bridge or an intersection).  In that case, it belongs on the ways, not
> the route.

Yup, or on another route relation.

More information about the Talk-us mailing list