[Talk-us] Proposed mechanical edits to harmonize county road relation network=* values nationwide

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

I think the nature of the proposed edits (expanding abbreviations and
harmonizing county name formats) is fine.  I'm ambivalent about whether
space or underscore is better as long as we can stick with one or the other.

One thing I would like to see spelled out is when we tag county routes
individually and when we tag them with a state-wide scheme.  For example,
the US interstate system repeats 3-digit route numbers across the country
but we still maintain one national network value (US:I), despite state
names often appearing on the interstate shields (varies from state to
state).  Likewise, in some states, route numbers are repeated in different
counties yet share a common shield and symbology statewide, perhaps with
the county name written on the standard shield.  Whatever the "rule" is for
what makes a route network distinct from another network, I think it's
worthwhile to examine whether any of these county route systems are
consistent with how that distinction is applied to county route systems in
other states, and with national routes such as the Interstate system.

On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 7:58 AM Clay Smalley <claysmalley at gmail.com> wrote:

> My fellow Americans,
>
> We have a lot of counties, a lot of county roads, and a lot of county road
> shields. Historically, these tagging schemes developed state-by-state
> without much coordination, so it makes sense that they've diverged. But
> consistency is helpful not only when writing software to support these
> tagging schemes, but also when documenting guidelines to apply to unmapped
> counties. While I was writing wiki documentation on route=road relations in
> a few states, I came across some inconsistencies between states that I
> thought deserved some attention:
>
> 1. Counties' names may have spaces. Currently, this is inconsistently
> reflected in tagging, with some states using spaces (network="US:WI:Fond du
> Lac") and others using underscores (network=US:OK:Roger_Mills).
>
> 2. Counties' names may have abbreviations, usually for "Saint". This is
> also inconsistent in tagging, with some states retaining the abbreviation
> (network="US:FL:CR:St. Lucie") and others expanding it
> (network="US:NY:Saint Lawrence").
>
> As the value of network=* is a standard developed by the OSM community,
> rather than a reflection of text one would see on-the-ground, I believe the
> optimal tagging scheme should prioritize convenience of software support.
> To this end, treating abbreviations and spaces consistently makes a huge
> difference when writing software to support potentially thousands of
> counties.
>
> I would like to propose editing all route=road relations with the
> following values of network=* to change spaces to underscores and expand
> abbreviations:
>
> US:FL:CR:Indian River
> US:FL:CR:Palm Beach
> US:FL:CR:Santa Rosa
> US:FL:CR:St. Johns
> US:FL:CR:St. Lucie
> US:IA:Buena Vista
> US:IA:Des Moines
> US:IA:Van Buren
> US:MN:Big Stone
> US:MN:Blue Earth
> US:MN:Crow Wing
> US:MN:Lac qui parle
> US:MN:Lake of the Woods
> US:MN:Le Sueur
> US:MN:Mille Lacs
> US:MN:Yellow Medicine
> US:NJ:Cape May
> US:NM:CR:Dona Ana
> US:NM:CR:San Juan:CM
> US:NM:CR:San Juan:NCM
> US:NM:CR:Santa Fe
> US:NY:Saint Lawrence
> US:TX:San Patricio
> US:TX:Van Zandt
> US:WI:Eau Claire
> US:WI:Fond du Lac
> US:WI:Green Lake
> US:WI:La Crosse
> US:WI:Saint Croix
>
> Of course, an update in tagging would be followed by an update in
> documentation.
>
> Worth a mention is Ohio, with a very well-structured scheme of network=*
> values. All counties in Ohio are referred to by their ODOT 3-letter code (a
> reasonable exception due to Ohio's unique condition of having township
> routes), and townships are all consistently referred to with underscores
> and expanded abbreviations where applicable. So a signed route belonging to
> St. Clair Township, Columbiana County, OH is tagged with
> network="US:OH:COL:Saint_Clair".
>
> I'd like to hear y'all's thoughts before going through with this edit.
>
> -Clay
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220502/87ae8e56/attachment.htm>