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

Alex Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Mon Oct 25 22:05:36 BST 2010

On 10/25/2010 02:44 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Alex Mauer<hawke at hawkesnest.net>  [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]:
>> So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed
>> to be a requirement no matter what.
> Not strictly.  Having a prefix in the rendering is important, but that can
> be synthesized from the other tags in every suggestion that's been made.

I totally agree.  My point is just that some people and some states 
(Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of 
the reference number: “The M in the state highway numbers is an integral 
part of the designation…Michigan highways are properly referred to using 
the M and never as ‘Route 28’ or ‘Highway 28’”.

Personally, I think it’s a bit silly, but then I’m not a resident of 
either of those states.  (I can imagine similar objections being raised 
if someone proposed removing M-, A- and B- in Britain, and simply 
inferring them from the highway=* type.)

—Alex Mauer “hawke”

More information about the Talk-us mailing list