[Talk-us] Name tag on unnamed, but numbered routes

[marcel at dejean.nyc]

Such names are no more "constructed" than numbered streets in a city grid
provided they are actually in use, like for addressing or on a street sign.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:47 AM Minh Nguyen - minh at
nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us <
ra+dxnvifjulaavnmrjjjfhjlcsobnqbceipxu at simplelogin.co> wrote:

> Vào lúc 06:44 2021-11-16, Brian M. Sperlongano đã viết:
> > There was a discussion on Slack this morning that could use a wider
> > perspective.  The question is what, if anything, should go in the "name"
> > tag for numbered routes in the US that don't have any other name.
> >
> > One convention is to make a "constructed" name from the route number,
> > for example, "VT Route 17" or "Highway 12" or something along those
> > lines to put in the name tag.  Arguments for this usage include signage
> > that contains these constructed names, for example at intersections with
> > other roads.
> >
> > Another convention is to have the name tag be omitted, perhaps also with
> > noname=yes for unnamed numbered routes.  The argument for this usage is
> > that name is only used for names, and ref is only used for route
> > numbers, and that constructed names are "mistagging for the renderer".
> > For transparency, this approach (no name tag) is my preference, however,
> > in my area, unnamed numbered routes are rare with the exception of
> > Interstate highways.
>
> A systematic name is still a name, even if it's derived from a route
> number. It would merely be tagging _redundantly_ for the renderer to use
> name=* for this purpose. It would be _mistagging_ for the renderer to
> tag name=VT Route 17ᴬ, with a superscript A just because the A is
> conventionally set in smaller type on signs in Vermont.
>
> There's no consistent standard on how a route number makes its way into
> a town or county's addressing scheme, so any idiosyncrasies should
> definitely go in name=* to avoid dataloss. My go-to example is "West
> United States 22 and 3", which is part of eastbound U.S. Route 22 and
> northbound State Route 3. [1]
>
> In practical terms, here's how I figure:
>
> * It's difficult for a data consumer to derive the name from just the
> way ref or route relation, based on diverse rules that vary from state
> to state or even by county. It is possible to develop a lookup table
> [2], but only to use it as a fallback when no name is tagged.
>
> * It's relatively easy for a data consumer that doesn't need the extra
> detail to omit the name when it's redundant to the ref. Looking for a
> matching number goes a long way.
>
> The data consumers I have in mind are renderer styles that show shields,
> renderer styles that intentionally don't show shields, geocoders, and
> navigation applications (especially voice guidance).
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/535853084
> [2] https://w.wiki/4RBc
>
> --
> minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20211119/c54c2191/attachment.htm>