[OSM-talk] On the ground rule on the wiki

[Nathan Edgars II]

(sorry about the duplicate, Anthony; I forgot to send to all)
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In other words, if we know for sure that Long Street
>> is officially the A1889, it might make sense as a separate
>> ref_unmarked=A1889 tag, like old_ref=A1, but using the same tagging
>> for signed and unsigned routes helps nobody.
>
> Agreed.  Using the exact same tagging would be inappropriate.  You might as
> well be taking that from the private message I sent you earlier today, where
> I said as much (I said we should map unsigned routes and add a tag of
> signed=yes/no).

That's not really enough, since we need to distinguish types of
unsigned routes. Who defined the route? If we can get good data to
that extent, then we can do something like MDSHA_route=IS 595 (see
page 6 of http://www.sha.state.md.us/KeepingCurrent/performTrafficStudies/dataAndStats/hwyLocationRef/2008_hlr_all/co02.pdf).
In this case, there's no other definition, but theoretically the
Federal Highway Administration might give it different endpoints, and
we'd show that in a different tag. For a county road, we might have
different tags based on the county's official definitions (if such
actually exist) and a possible statewide database.
>
> But you're looking at only half of the picture.  Yes, if you know where you
> want to go on the map and you want to find it in the real world, you want to
> have access to the signs that are on the ground.  Of course, for that
> purpose we're better off mapping most of the signs as nodes, not as ways.
>
> But what if you're looking for A1889?  If it's not on the map, and it's not
> on the ground, you're not going to find it.

Then maybe you shouldn't find it :)
But this is what the separate tag would cover, *if* we have an
authoritative official definition of the route.
>
> I guess the suggestion to "map what's on the ground" is good advice as long
> as it's not exclusionary.  But my beef is with people who tell us to "map
> what's on the ground" to the exclusion of everything that isn't on the
> ground.
>
I guess I'm more of a "map more prominently what's on the ground, and
only map what's not on the ground within reason" person. But I would
like some beef, if you've got any extra.