[Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways

[Dale Puch]

The scheme sounds simple enough at first but is it robust and usable?  If
not what would it take to make it so?  Here are some of my thought on it.

The way I see it you take the last element of the network tag (FARM in this
case) and that is the network.
Ref is the ID in that network
The first part of the network tag is the location that isolates the network
to make it unique.

Those would be the rules to create the tags, and to parse it.  This works
well for relations witch only have one route.  For ways, that will always be
a mess if more than one route.  Either just put the primary, or comma
separate them as a reference just for repairing broken relations.

So would this actually work for all situations?  Or at least enough that the
exceptions are small enough to live with?

network=US:TX:SR
ref=10
= Texas State road 10

network=US:FL:Orange:CR
ref=10
= Florida Orange county road 10

network=US:TX:FARM
ref=10
= Texas State Farm road 10

Wouldn't this just use one US in network?
network=US:BUSINESS
ref=50
= US Business 50

Or should this really just be broken into a third tag?  Location/controlling
body (US, State, county ect.) Network and Ref?  What would be a good tag
name for that?  How would the county names be handled/abbreviated?

How will this affect maps and software for parsing the tag info?  Will it
make it easier or harder to display names/shields to local standards.


On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Craig Hinners <craig at hinnerspace.com>wrote:

> > Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
> > For FM 1960, I'd use:
> > network=US:TX
> > ref="FM 1960"
>
> I'd prefer to put all of the network information in the "network" tag,
> keeping the "ref" tag as a pure container for "the unique designation
> within the network":
>
> network=US:TX:FARM
> ref=1960
>
> Similarly, instead of this style of tagging of US business routes (example
> found in Salisbury, MD):
>
> network=US:US
> ref=50 Business
>
> I'd prefer:
>
> network=US:US:BUSINESS
> ref=50
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dale Puch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20110823/051d9ac3/attachment.html>