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

[Zeke Farwell]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:49 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

The common names are Vermont Route 15 and Interstate 89, so that's what
makes most sense to have in the name tag.  Official names that barely exist
in the real world belong in official_name or some other alternative name
tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211119/5c7615b3/attachment.htm>