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

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 6:29 PM Tod Fitch <tod at fitchfamily.org> wrote:

>
>
> On Nov 20, 2021, at 4:01 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
> Expansions like this are usually handled in the description field of a
> road route relation.  Why not name?  Sometimes routes are named and/or
> numbered.  Creek Turnpike would be an example of a named route, it having
> OK 365 as a ref is a relatively recent update.  Or OK 51, the 42nd Rainbow
> Infantry Division Highway (or something like that).  It's also a named
> route.  But most route relations have descriptions that often match a
> reasonable expansion (though this can't be gauranteed, perhaps we need
> ref:stylized as a hint to consumers; example, ref:stylized=State Highway
> 51.
>
>
> The creation of a ref:stylized=* tag is an interesting idea. I think that
> would fit the situation I see in some rural areas where there is no obvious
> name on state highways.
>

I should probably clarify that I strongly suggest we stick this to the
object that it best applies to, so in the case of what you see on the
shield, this would be the relation, not the way.  I'd love for the project
worldwide to move away from describing routes outside of their specific
relations long term.  ref=* on the way to describe a longer route was
clever before relations became a thing but it's a bit of a hammy bodge more
than a decade after relations became a thing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211120/a47f0cb0/attachment.htm>