[Talk-us] Improving coverage of exit numbers and destinations on motorways

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 3:18 AM, Greg Morgan <dr.kludge.gm at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> The work flow that you mention drive me batty.[0]  At one time there was a
> discussion on the list about moving exit_to tags as destination tags on the
> ramp.  I moved most of the exit_to tags that I mapped to the ramps.  Here
> you are proposing something different by leaving some exit_to tags and
> adding destination tags occasionally.  The batty part, is that the original
> way I mapped these without exit_to was what I found in Europe. It looks
> like Paul has a point because junction:ref is in the wiki page
> that Duane cites. I don't know that you can use "does not look like the x tagging
> scheme is very common" or "we will continue to follow the conventional
> tagging" when the wiki page has changes as recent as 9/2015.
>
>
Plus Osmand consumes the ramp tagging, not the node tagging (and in no
small part because it's not obvious which direction the node means if
you're a machine).  Most of the interstates (soon, all) will have both.
Though Osmand doesn't use motorway junction refs or the way's junction:ref
(yet).

That said, yes, destination has legs.
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/destination#map  Junction:ref=* is
getting there.  http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/junction%3Aref#map
 And here's a control with highway=motorway_link
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=motorway_link#map

Seems with the more flexible tagging (junction:ref=* and destination=*)
there's a strong correlation between regions with the strongest car culture
(Route 66, New England and Germany) and where it's being tagged.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160504/a8aae223/attachment-0001.html>