[Talk-us] [Talk-ca] "Highway X" and the like as names

[Greg Troxel]

"Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonewolf at gmail.com> writes:

> Greetings from south of the border, and also cross-posting to the talk-us
> list.  This is a topic we've been debating recently and it's fairly
> inconclusive.  We've discovered that there are some cases where most people
> agree that making redundant names is wrong (example: name=Interstate 95).
> There are other cases where there's state and county routes where the
> highway spelled out with route numbers is used in street signs and postal
> addressing with no other name, where there are very good arguments for
> having e.g. "State Highway 15" in the name tag of ways.  So I don't think
> that we've established any particular rule or consensus in the US on this
> topic and there's a fair amount of disagreement about where to draw the
> line..

I think that's a good summary.

As an example of a route name being used as a postal address (confusing
as "1741" is part of the name, when the house was built):

  https://www.easthamhistoricalsociety.org/

has

  1741 SWIFT-DALEY HOUSE
  2375 Route 6
  Eastham, MA 02642
  
so even if there is also a different name for the road, "Route 6" is
valid as one of name/alt_name.  In Massachusetts, this sort of naming is
not particularly common and I can't immediately think of another example
(but surely there are a few).


This being complicated leads to a guideline that non-locals should not
remove such tags if they are even semi-reasonable.  Fixing cases where
it's known there is no support for the Highway X being a name is perhaps
another story, but still I think it's good to check in with locals.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220120/89484aab/attachment.sig>