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

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> 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’”.

It's part of the name when you're talking about the route, just like
one would say "I-95" or "US 1". It's not part of the designation as
shown in shields, either on the ground or on maps.