What I meant is that even if that "ref=49" is wrongly associated to that
ramp, the GPS shouldn't have confounded that with the correct one, which
is "destination:ref=NY 78". After all, there may be the case in some
country or jurisdiction where ramps do have references.
Regards,
António.
Às 03:10 de 02/06/2025, Dave Swarthout escreveu:
@Antonio
I realize the two destination tags are correct as I stated in my post.
It's the ref=49 tags on the exit ramps that I object to. Those ways do
not have any sign indicating a ref and are not typically tagged with a
ref in my experience. Nor are there any ref tags on any exit ramps in
the other interchanges I looked at.
@Paul Johnson - thanks, that is my conclusion as well.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 12:44 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2025 at 11:00 AM Dave Swarthout
<daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote:
The original mapper tagged the exit ramps, i.e., the ways
immediately after the exit node (correctly tagged with ref=49,
highway=motorway_junction) with:
destination:ref=NY 78
destination=Depew;Lockport
highway=motorway_link
junction:ref=49
lanes=1
maxspeed:advisory=40 mph
oneway=yes
ref=49
surface=asphalt
Yeah, I'd remove the ref=49 on that, since that's already
correctly reflected in the junction:ref=49 tag and the whole
"using ref=* on ways to make up for route relations not existing
yet" thing's a decade past its prime anyway...
--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog: http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/184600884@N06
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
