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

[Zeke Farwell]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 6:32 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 4:41 PM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure loc_name="The 5" probably would be appropriate on route relation
>> as that is what the locals call it 😉.  But that's beside the point.
>> Vermont Route 15 (and many other Vermont state highways) is literally
>> signed with that name on street name signs.  It's the real name, not just a
>> colloquialism.
>>
>> [image: Screen Shot 2021-11-19 at 5.30.39 PM.png]
>>
>
> This looks like noname=yes, ref=VT 15.
>

¯\_(ツ)_/¯   To me it looks like name="VT Route 15", ref="VT 15"

I've heard "names aren't refs" or "refs aren't names" repeated many times
but never with a clear argument for why it's problematic to include the
route number in the name field.  So I assume it must not be an actual
problem.  I don't care that much if a segment of VT-15 is tagged as
*noname=yes* (less useful) or *name="VT Route 15"* (more useful).  Mostly I
care about it *not* being tagged *name="Grand Army of the Republic Highway"*.
Despite being "official", that name is not helpful for navigation at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211119/975a754d/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2021-11-19 at 5.30.39 PM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 316297 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211119/975a754d/attachment-0001.png>