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

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:13 PM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I'd argue it is helpful.

"Golden State Freeway" is generally not called that by name, but that's
still what it's named.  But let's go with a theoretical example that we've
all seen immediate real world examples of (going into fictional places for
the sake of not accidentally singling someone out or getting caught in the
weeds on geographical accuracy).  You're on a trip heading towards
Heresville, Nebrahoma.  You're coming up to a fork in the road, and your
nav says "In 300 meters, stay left on Nebrahoma State Route 36 (NA 36)."
That added no value to the situation, nor can the data consumer filter
against that.  Especially since some segment of Nebrahoma 36 might end up
on 36th Street in Anyton.  Locales in the middle inconsistently put
variations of Route 36, Highway 36, or whatever else on the finger signs
instead of using the correct shield with double ended arrow sign instead in
between, but it's immediately apparent that's not the name but the highway
number.  Tagging it noname=yes, ref=NA 36 solves for literally all of this,
isn't ambiguous in any way and avoids annoying and distracting duplication.

Now, let's throw out a more advanced example.  Nebrahoma 61 is a highway,
the Cornboys Football Team Highway.  Nobody calls it that, it's just "61"
or "CB" to the locals, and it's only intermittently signed with that name.
But you're not familiar with the area and haven't stopped and talked with
anyone, and who would you?  You're 30km from anything but corn.  There's a
weird turnoff that looks like the highway (turns out, it was the old
highway, and it used to be the main highway before they bypassed that part
15 years ago with a straighter, flatter route and is now Cornfield Road,
but there's no sign at the intersection to know which way was the right way
or what that road on the turnoff is called), then you pass one of the green
signs typically used for names saying Cornboys Football Team Highway and
now wonder if you lost the correct road.  Being able to see "Cornboys
Football Team Highway (NA 61)" as the current road would give you
confirmation at a glance you're still on the right path.  What the locals
call it might be handy to put under loc_name=CB Highway.

(As an aside, come to think of it, thinking back to my life in Oregon, if
nobody's added loc_name=TV Highway to Tualatin Valley Highway in Oregon,
that'd actually be a good thing to do; similar to how the Randy Papé
Beltline near Eugene could have both loc_name and old_name set to Beltline
Road, that one famously being both one of my first edits and so far only
time that a major newspaper has called out an edit I made directly, some
grouchy editor upset that ODOT changed the road name and signs overnights
over the course of a week trying to stay in denial).

I'd generally consider names on a brown sign to be honorific or secondary
names outright as that definitely disambiguates the name.  A real world
example comes up on US 26, Sunset Highway for a stretch between
Beaverton-Tigard Freeway (OR 217) and Exit 67, Murray Boulevard, where a
brown sign declares it the _____ Memorial Highway after some kid my age in
my mom's neighborhood that got hit by a car laying down in the freeway on a
dare back in the 90s, and another section by the zoo gets a brown sign
honorific name after some soldier I've never heard of.  But some states are
like Nebrahoma and renames the primary name of highway itself, leave the
number alone, and the Federated States Postal Service says "Yeah whatever"
and keeps using either the old name or the route number.  That's where it's
helpful to have the name appear on the map primarily, with some combination
of old_name, loc_name, or the suggested name:addr set secondarily for the
sake of searchability.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211119/17803231/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/20211119/17803231/attachment-0001.png>