Talk:Interstate Highways

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discuss Interstate Highways here:

Spaces in the ref 'I 80'

I put the spaces back in the example ref value on this page. I noticed in the page history that these were removed recently, and then that change was partially reverted.

It seems a bit crazy to remove the space, based on the existing values I'm seeing. See the list here. Most ref values for the interstates have a space after the 'I'. Almost as many have a hyphen '-', but hardly any of them have neither a space nor a hyphen. I don't really care which approach is adopted, but since we're closest to adopting the space character, and since I've already give some advice on this here: Waychains TIGER fixup#Fixes let's go with the space character?

Maybe I'm missing a discussion somewhere else.

-- Harry Wood 15:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That was my fault - I forgot to revert all the way. Paul is convinced that any use of a space in the ref is a typo; see this edit for example. --NE2 19:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I strongly prefer hyphens in Interstate refs. This is recommended by the MUTCD for general-purpose abbreviations of Interstate route designations. Nearly all renderers do nothing with the ref tag besides displaying it unaltered, so the most convenient human-readible format should be used. With the existence of highway route relations, which are already well-structured and machine-readible, there's no reason a renderer or other consumer of data needs to parse a ref tag, particularly when routes overlap. Even if you disagree with that human-vs-machine argument, I'll cite specific renderers. Most of them, including Mapnik and Osmarender/TaH, display the ref tag unaltered. CycleMap uses relations (at least for cycle routes, not sure if it even bothers with highway refs). As for Mapquest Open, I can't tell if it's looking at relations or ref tags, but if it's looking at ref tags, Interstates with hyphens work just fine. Can anyone cite specific renderers or use cases where a space "works", but a hyphen doesn't? PS — my second choice would be a space; having no separator at all is just a bad idea. Vid the Kid 18:17, 26 March 2012 (BST)
+1. At this point, with all the Interstate highways in machine-readable relations, we shouldn't need to punctuate all types of routes the same way. (MapQuest Open, by the way, uses ref tags, but they parse out "I " and "I-" for shields and automatically add the hyphen in directions. For concurrencies, they use the first number in the ref.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 18:41, 26 March 2012 (BST)
I'm personally cool with either way as long as we have a gap between the "I" and the number since the "I" can look like a "1" depending on the rendering. Doesn't matter if it's a space or the hyphen. I have no problems with either. -- rickmastfan67 09:36, 27 March 2012 (BST)

I would not be opposed to changing the standard if we can guarantee that there will be no edit wars. That is, a mass change will happen, and any attempted reversion will be quashed. --NE2 19:41, 26 March 2012 (BST)

Make sure to time the mass change right when odblbot comes through – no one will notice. :^P – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:34, 27 March 2012 (BST)

Hidden routes

In on e of the recent edits by Boppet, he changed the main page to say the following:

"Some mappers have left out double-banded tags such as US 12 where it is double-banded with I 394 in Minneapolis, on the grounds that the physical signing on the ground is less than complete. Some of the signs are missing the US 12 shield. The recommendation here is that these missing references be added, so that way coding becomes consistent with relation coding. The route is legally US 12 as well as I 394 whether or not so posted at every sign."

This why the "unsigned_ref" tag was invented. Some states intentionally hide the US Highways (or sometimes state highways) along the Interstates. One example would be US-52 on I-94 in Minnesota. Along the entire distance of that multiplex, US-52 is hidden. And what about US-85 in New Mexico where isn't posted anywhere along I-25 in the entire state (including the ~4 mile segment where it leaves I-25 in Las Vegas, NM)? We should try to limit confusion to the motoring public by sticking with how the DOT's post the highways along Interstates. Sure, we should have a way to keep them in the relations, but also mention that they are hidden (not just on the ways). Maybe something this like this in relations: "role=west,unsigned"? -- rickmastfan67 (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)