[Talk-us] Highway ref again.

Clay Smalley claysmalley at gmail.com
Fri Jul 27 02:48:18 BST 2012


On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Apollinaris Schöll <aschoell at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - multiple refs in tag with a semicolon: Many of them had been entered not
> too long ago and are clearly not a damage from the redaction. Wasn't the
> consensus to use relations? In the past I have only used the ref of the most
> important route on the way itself. This is what is rendered on all maps.
> secondary routes are only in the relation in case of overlaps.

What if they're equally important and recognized (like Interstate
80/90 through Ohio and Indiana, or US 1/9 in New Jersey)?

I generally put down all the routes separated by semicolons. But in
the case where one route obviously "dominates" another (like a
concurrent Interstate and US Highway), it's probably okay to put the
dominant route.

> - state routes. In the past most states have been mapped with <state>
> <number>, now many refs have been changed to SR <number>. According to
> official documents in California SR is correct. road signs are mixed in
> California.Most common is number only but SR or state highway ore state
> route is possible too. BUT we have used the <state> <number> for so long and
> acrossmany states. should we really change?

Generally, the state abbreviation is correct (except in cases like
Texas with FM and Loop and Spur routes). The use of SR and SH for
state highways was mainly (unnecessarily) brought on by NE2. I guess
both are correct, but the former is more descriptive and uniform.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list