* Andrew Errington <erringt...@gmail.com> [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' <vidthe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of > > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to > > me. > > It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it > does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign > or not.
I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-) -- Larry Wall _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
