[Talk-us] Highway ref again.

Alan Mintz Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.Net
Fri Jul 27 07:29:29 BST 2012

At 2012-07-26 18:48, Clay Smalley wrote:
>On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Apollinaris Schöll <aschoell at gmail.com> 
> >
> > - 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)?

The consumers should not assume anything from the order. Personally, I 
enter them in alphanumeric order (I think - its been a while).

> > - 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.

I support using the state abbrev, as this was the way that seemed to be 
favored in the documentation years ago, and doesn't require another tag 
(which *state*?) to disambiguate.

Alternatively, moving the prefix to the network tag is OK, too:
         ref="I 80;US 101;CA 62"
         ref="80;101;62" + network="US:I;US;US:CA"

Once editors do a better job of creating those relations and keeping them 
whole, and consumers correctly handle them, I'm ok with moving the tags to 
relations. At that point, it would make sense to move all the tags at once. 
Having them in both places doesn't seem all that maintainable.

I also use:

ref="FH nn" - USFS Forest Highway
ref="FR nXn[n][.n]" - USFS Forest Route/Road
ref="FT nXn[n][.n]" - USFS Forest Trail

For county roads in California, I've used:
ref="CR Xn[n]" + network=US:CA:county_name

but this probably needs to be changed to remove the county_name part for 
the roads that are part of the state-wide numbering Xn[n] system, so as to 
be able to distinguish them from individual counties' road numbers. That 
is, I think the statewide-numbered county roads, like S14 in Orange County, 
should be:
ref="CR S14" + network="US:CA:County"
while San Bernardino County Road 53156 should be:
ref="CR 53156" + network="US:CA:San Bernardino"

Alan Mintz <Alan_Mintz+OSM at Earthlink.net>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list