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

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:37 PM Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
wrote:

> Vào lúc 17:56 2021-11-19, Paul Johnson đã viết:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 7:13 PM Zeke Farwell
> >     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.
>
> Some of the highways officially named "Grand Army of the Republic
> Highway" are only posted as such on a faded plaque in front of the
> restrooms at the rest area. That isn't helpful for navigation at all,
> not even for addressing. That said, there are grayer areas than that.
>

In that rather dark black edge case, I'd definitely suggest that goes in a
secondary name value.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211120/e9fea927/attachment.htm>