[Talk-us] Highway ref again.
techlady at techlady.com
Fri Jul 27 17:34:24 BST 2012
I think you've identified another area
where clarity is needed: What order should be
used when entering multiple refs. I tend to do it
with interstates first, then US routes, then
state routes, within each group by number, low to
high. However, a definite rule would be helpful.
At 11:29 PM 7/26/2012, you wrote:
>At 2012-07-26 18:48, Clay Smalley wrote:
>>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)?
>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>
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
927 18th Street Suite A
Santa Monica, California
techlady at techlady.com
The Four Internet Freedoms
Freedom to visit any site on the Internet
Freedom to access any content or service that is not illegal
Freedom to attach any device that does not interfere with the network
Freedom to know all the terms of a service,
particularly any that would affect the first three freedoms.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us