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

[Zeke Farwell]

 On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 7:06 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

>
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 9:23 PM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  A name tag with the value "Vermochussetts Highway 25" solves this
>> problem for the map renderer.  Without name tags, the different terms
>> each state uses for its highways aren't available.
>>
>
> 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.
>

I did some Overpass querying to try and find examples of route relations
with description tags containing things like "State Route 34", "Wyoming
Highway 25", or similar.  In every state I checked I found only one or two
route relations that had a description tag at all.  Most of the time it was
something like this one <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/302916>
with a description of "I495 is a bypass of I95 around the city of
Wilmington, Delaware."  However, in Oklahoma I found many examples
<https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1dif> like this one
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3193559> tagged as you suggest.  I
didn't check every state, so perhaps this method of putting a route name in
the description tag isn't limited to just Oklahoma, but as far as I can
tell this is not common in most other states.  So a more accurate sentence
would be:  In Oklahoma, expansions like this are in the description field
of a road route relation.



> Vermont is not one of these states.  Grand Army of the Republic Highway is
>> exactly this kind of honorific, secondary name signed only occasionally on
>> very small signs (though they are green not brown).  This is why I'm so
>> adamant that it belongs in official_name, not the main name tag.  It may
>> be appropriate for an official_name like this to exist on sections where
>> the only other name is Vermont Route XX.  In these case the correct tagging
>> is going to either be:
>>
>
> That's fair, though if it really is a purely honorific name, someone might
> want to point out to VDOT that this belongs on a brown sign, not a green
> one, per the MUTCD...
>

Feel free to give VDOT VTrans <https://vtrans.vermont.gov/contact-us>a
call.  The color doesn't matter to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20211121/cabc5883/attachment-0001.htm>