[Talk-us] State ref tags on ways

[stevea]

>On 3/10/14 11:07 PM, James Mast wrote:
>>  I know that in some states that we don't add the state 
>>abbreviation (and use 'SR' or 'SH'), and other states we don't add 
>>anything at all expect just the number.
>>
>  > I'm just curious if anybody thinks we should try to get them all 
>standardized on the ways.

<redacted>
And then Richard Welty replied:

>i would personally like to seem some consistency but i kind of
>stopped trying to advocate the position a while ago. it didn't seem
>like agreement was terribly likely and it was better to just continue
>to press on with building proper route relations.

Offering my two cents, I'd like to see a move towards consistency in 
each of the fifty states.  In California, there was a move within OSM 
to prefix County Roads with "CR " (and then the county road route 
ref, like "G2") as well as prefixing State Routes with "SR" or "CA" 
(federal Buck Act abbreviation for California).  This was done 
inconsistently, and in mapnik, makes CR and CA almost 
indistinguishable unless I squint.  Please don't make me squint, and 
please don't needlessly lengthen ref tags, which in some cases 
(California a good example) makes them hard to distinguish, not to 
mention ugly, too long and just plain wrong.

A ref tag like "G2" says all it needs to say to anybody familiar with 
how California breaks apart its County Road system into several 
multiple county regions, grouping these with a letter, then suffixing 
with an integer anywhere from a few to a couple dozen routes within 
that lettered system; there is no need to prefix with "CR " as it is 
redundant (factually) and ugly (in my opinion).  Plus, signs say "G2" 
or "S19" not "CR G2" or "CR S19".  I can only guess these latter 
shields/ref tags are helpful for those "not from around here."  For 
those who are, these are just plain wrong.

Plus, if I see simply "9" or "17" on a mapnik shield (small circle or 
oval), I know those to be State Routes (highways) and I don't need 
"CA " to prefix them.  I believe it to be polite and correct for 
"I-5" or "I-210" to appear on Interstates, even though all fifty 
states do not have any number collisions between their state highways 
and (federal) Interstates.

Martijn's relation pages are an excellent tool to find (and fix, 
where desired or necessary) inconsistencies.

I assume these guidelines (except for County Roads) are similarly 
true in all fifty states, though I defer to local expertise outside 
of California.

SteveA
California