[Talk-us] Follow up on destination= and destination:ref=

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi,

I posted about destination= and destination:ref= a few days ago,
linking to my diary entry. I have since received a lot of useful
comments. I just wanted to bump this topic because all the discussion
has been going on there and not on the list:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/22419#comment27109

Here at Telenav, we have now adopted destination= and destination:ref=
for signpost information. We have two people adding information about
signposts where they don't exist, prioritizing corridors that are of
particular importance to us. You can follow their work here:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Dami_D/history
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ChrisZontine/history

We are not removing or replacing existing exit_to tagging. We are
focusing on exits that don't have signpost information at all yet.

We are also building support for this convention into our OSM model,
retaining the existing support for exit_to for now.

>From the comment thread on my diary entry I get the feeling that there
is some sense of agreement that we can move towards finally
deprecating exit_to. As much as I would love to, that would require
more discussion around what we will do with the existing exit_to tags,
support in editors, etc. I would like to start talking about these
things, but not before I am comfortable that we want this as a
community.

--
Martijn van Exel
OSM data specialist
Telenav
http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel
http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel