[Talk-us] Tagging historic US routes

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri Mar 6 05:33:56 UTC 2020

Try network=US:US:Historic on your route relation.  Might not render, but
you can at least give renderers *something* for renderers to latch onto if
they want that information. ref=US Historic xx seems to be the way tagging
for that if you want to go that route.  I recommend, until we can finally
kill the route-tagging-on-way "ref=*" legacy method, to implement both,
since it makes it more obvious if the ref=* tagging gets munged later.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:46 PM Tod Fitch <tod at fitchfamily.org> wrote:

> This weekend I drove part of AZ-79 and noticed that Arizona has now put up
> some “Historic US 80” signage. On the sections of highway I drove, every
> occurrence of a AZ-79 route marker now also has a historic US-80 route
> marker. (Back in the day that highway was dual signed as US-80 and US-89
> but I guess nobody cares about having historic US-89 markers at present.)
> I was in a rental car and eventually figured out how to get Apple CarPlay
> setup so I could use the OSM based Maps.me app to show the roads I was on.
> In doing so I saw that Maps.me was showing the road with dual highway
> shields: A AZ shield with 79 and a US shield with 80. Since US-80 was
> decommissioned a long time ago (at least in Arizona and California) this
> seems wrong so I thought I’d look at the tagging.
> The tagging is on a route relation [1], at least I don’t see tagging on
> the individual way segments that would render as “US 80”.
> How should this be tagged?
> Casting about for examples of what to do, it seems that the Lincoln
> Highway [2] relation is quite different. And US 66 in California has no
> historic route relation at all, just the current county road route [3].
> There is a German page on the wiki about “route=historic” [4]. My reading
> of a machine translation of it implies that instead of “route=road” the
> historic US 80 relation should have “route=historic” and “historic=road”.
> Suggestions?
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9230611
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3958115
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/205719338
> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhistoric
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200305/8bcf1200/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list