[Talk-us] Consensus on "SR" for state route versus state abbreviation?
rwelty at averillpark.net
Thu Sep 13 04:36:57 BST 2012
On 9/12/12 11:24 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Richard Welty
> <rwelty at averillpark.net <mailto:rwelty at averillpark.net>> wrote:
> what i recall is that NE2 likes the appearance of bare route
> numbers and most of his ref
> tags have no prefix at all (see FL, PA, NJ among other states
> where he did a lot of this.)
> this was, of course, tagging for a particular mapnik rendering
> appearance. make your
> own judgements.
> In his defence, he did just edit I 44 through my area, and the only
> tagging difference on ref=* (several tags were edited) was removal of
> a space in ref=I 44; OK 66 to be ref=I 44;OK 66 (and sacking is_in).
> Not entirely clear what the ultimate goal of the changeset was, but I
> didn't really see anything overtly wrong with it so I let it go.
what i didn't say (and should have) was that he only does bare route
numbers for state
as a software person, i dislike inconsistency in representations
(prefixes vs no prefixes),
but because there aren't strong controls over how ref tags are edited,
it's something that
has to be lived with, and code simply has to be robust enough to not
presented with such things.
i personally am slightly neutral on the nature of the state prefix. in
NY, using the postal
prefix makes lots of sense as everyone in this state knows exactly what
to. but i grew up in Florida, and the SR prefix is the norm when
referring to state highways
there. MI and TX are unique of course, as others have posted in this
thread. i don't know
that a truly consistent US-wide concensus is actually achievable.
i think i feel a longer essay about tagging (and what we're tagging for)
coming on, but i'm
not going to write it tonight.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us