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

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:30 PM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 3:52 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm pretty sure noname=yes with official_name=* set is automatically a
>> tagging error...that would be the *de facto* name.
>>
>
> This is why a name like "Route XX" is perfectly valid when that's what
> people call it and how it's signed.  Two examples near me:
>
> *Vermont Route 15*
>
>    - Name:  Vermont Route 15
>    - Alt Names:  Route 15, VT Route 15
>    - Short Name: VT-15
>    - Official/Memorial Name: Grand Army of the Republic Highway
>    - Route Number: 15
>
> No one calls it Grand Army of the Republic Highway and signs with that
> name appear only rarely.  Addresses never use that name.  The de facto name
> where there is no local street name is Vermont Route 15.
>
>
> *Interstate 89*
>
>    - Name: Interstate 89
>    - Short Name: I-89
>    - Official/Memorial Name: Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway
>    - Route Number: 89
>
> No one calls it Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway and if there are any
> signs with that name I've never seen them (I've looked).  The de facto name
> is Interstate 89.
>

In both of these cases, the official name should be the name tag, and not
duplicating the ref tag or route relation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211119/5c672a37/attachment.htm>