Talk:Ohio/Route relations/Networks

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I generated many of these ranges by running the overpass turbo query suggested by Taginfo, loading the JSON into a JavaScript environment, such as SpiderMonkey, and evaluating the following expression:

load("turbo.json"); [results.elements.filter(elt => elt.tags && /^[.\d]+$/.test(elt.tags.ref)).map(elt => parseFloat(elt.tags.ref)).sort((a, b) => a > b), results.elements.filter(elt => elt.tags && !/^[.\d]+$/.test(elt.tags.ref)).map(elt => elt.tags.ref).sort((a, b) => a.localeCompare(b))]

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

hidden route relations

Many county roads in urban areas, such as CH 96 in Barberton, OH, are unsigned. Should relations still be created for these hidden routes? Bored (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to create relations for unsignposted routes if you want. However, use unsigned_ref=* instead of ref=*. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Full names in network

At some point, in the original bug that started this page, it was pointed out (some years ago) that 'full county names' are generally preferred. This has remained true. You may wish to nudge network tags in Ohio to using US:OH:fullcountyname, using whitespaces (*not* underscores). Two shield render projects I know of, OsmAnd, and another that may go into Openstreetmap-carto, are working on things they're doing with the general assumption of 'fully named out names in the network tag'. Ohio is the exception and not the rule in this regard. Just an FYI. Skybunny (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)