[Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept

[Tod Fitch]

On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote:

> Kerry
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary designators in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one is presented first.  We can easily ignore the less important numbers.  But without a way ref (i.e., using only relation refs, as has been suggested) we have no way of knowing what is the most common route designator for that specific way.
> 
> Peter
> 
There may be no "most common route designator". A semi-local example: If I am directing you east over Sonora Pass I'll tell you to go east on CA 108. If I direct you to Yosemite I'll tell you to go east on CA 120. But for a number of miles they are the same road with dual signage with no obvious method of tell which one is the most common designator.

(You can probably tell what the road officially is by looking at the very cryptic and hard to read version of a mile/information posts that CalTrans uses but most motorists never notice them and if they do they are very difficult to read or decipher without stopping.)

Some of your examples are in areas I am not familiar with. But in both the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles there are named freeways. I notice that in the Bay Area the name is almost never used whereas in LA it seems both are used with the name being more common. In either case I'd expect the name key to specify the name and the ref to specify the route number. How you decide that a local would be more likely to use the name (LA) or the ref (SF) I haven't the fainted idea.

Tod
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20131221/62ce0d91/attachment.html>