[Talk-us] Current Texas State Highway ref is incorrect

Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org
Fri Nov 6 18:07:19 UTC 2015

I think the convention and preference is to use the state code as a prefix.
The data supports this.
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cvJ --> ~1100 ways / rels with 'SH' or 'SR'
prefix in ref
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/cvL --> ~11000 ways / rels with 'TX' prefix in
Caution, latter query runs for more than a minute and returns a good 40MB
of data!

I saved the results of the first query as  a gist so we may repair those
instead ;) https://gist.github.com/anonymous/7864216fcb3b55f2a8bd


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 1:51 AM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Sam Iacullo <sjiacullo at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The current setup for Texas State Highway ref tagging (See:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Texas)
>> There has already been some discussion as to what exists on the map (
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2014-September/013604.html),
>> but this was based on the majority of relations being incorrectly added
>> into OSM. As per the Texas Department of Transportation, the ref should be
>> "ref=SH ##" instead of the current "ref=TX ##".
> Don't do this!  OSM convention for state highways is to use the state
> abbreviation, not "SH" or "SR".  This is done to disambiguate refs and make
> it easier for renderers that are still using this obsolete tagging
> convention rather than using route relations.  Don't tag for the renderer,
> but don't break it intentionally, either!
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20151106/e72b0043/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list