[Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 19 09:50:38 UTC 2015

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>

> On 2015-01-19 00:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> Are they actually separate networks, though?  Just because there's more
>> digits doesn't a different network make.
> What distinguishes the various networks that a given agency maintains? For
> our purposes, I think we're most interested in:

I'd say the signed network, as visible to the layman.  This varies a bit
from state to state.  Using values for network=* for relations, I'd say
some valid examples would be:

US:PA:Turnpike (possibly only one member?)
(keep going at least another 7 iterations for Texas networks alone, being
the most extreme example).

What I would not consider a separate network:

Oregon Highways (as opposed to Oregon Routes, as the routes are visible on
the shields, and the highways are pretty thoroughly useless if you don't
work with ODOT and aren't a geek).

1. Significant differences in signage (signage type, shield designs,
> bannered routes)
> 2. Potential overlaps in numbering
> Given the extra digits, #2 is unlikely, but the quadrant routes are signed
> very differently than ordinary state routes. It looks like they're only
> indicated as secondary information on out-of-the-way mile-markerish signs.
> (It also appears that conventionally one is prefixed "PA" while the other
> is prefixed "SR".)
> For example, here's a directional sign for PA 443:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/dougtone/4176740362/
> There's a quadrant route number on the marker beneath it. It's the
> four-digit number next to "SR", above "210". Unlike "PA 443", "SR 3009" is
> inappropriate for how OSM clients use the `ref` tag. It might be worth
> mapping inasmuch as bridge inventory numbers are worth mapping, but I agree
> with James that we should keep mappers from conflating the two systems. And
> if the solution starts with `ref:penndot`, there's no need to square that
> with route networks in other states. :-)

OK, this really seems like it's identical to Oregon's situation with
Highways (which are signed only on blades and often don't match the same
number as the state route for highways created before roughly 2006, like this
one from OR 47, indicating Highway 102
and state parks often never have state routes, even though things like
campground RV loops and above the low tide line on beaches are technically
state highways; and similar Oklahoma's situation with highways 0, 00, and
000 (they're not signed as state highways at all to my knowledge, so can't
really provide a visual for this).

These definitely don't belong in ref=* at all, ref:penndot does sound
acceptable (in which I doubt you really need the SR, but who cares since
we're talking agency-specific tagging now?).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150119/1bd6ae00/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list