Re-tagging quadrant routes in Pennsylvania, USA from `ref` -> `ref:penndot` (Part 2)
Posted by oini on 9 February 2016 in English.Continuing from the previous diary post.
Last week, the quadrant routes (routes having 4-digit route numbers prefixed with SR
) in Pennsylvania were re-tagged by replacing the ref
key with the ref:penndot
key.
Outcome
Total routes re-tagged: 6787
Breakdown of re-tagged routes
ref=Sr ****
->ref:penndot=SR ****
: 35ref=SR ****
->ref:penndot=SR ****
: 3151- This was a mass-edit and have been uploaded in one go
- After the edit was done it was noticed that in 29 of these routes
SR ****
was followed by a non-state route number likeT***
,PA ***
,Historic PA ***
ref=SR****
->ref:penndot=SR****
: 3592- This edit was done in 7 parts, each changesest containing the following number of routes:
- 32: In this case,
ref=SR****
was changed toref:penndot=SR ****
using the TODO list plugin in JOSM. Since changing the rest 3560 routes in a similar way would have taken a very long time, from the next step onlyref
was changed toref:penndot
by mass modification andSR****
was left as is - 474
- 179
- 325
- 592
- 1422
- 568
- 32: In this case,
- Also this time it was ensured that none of the routes of the order of
SR
followed by a non-state route number were edited
- This edit was done in 7 parts, each changesest containing the following number of routes:
ref:penndot=Sr
->ref:penndot=SR
: 9
Note
- Of these 6787 re-tagged routes, 1031 routes were found with the
penndot_ref
tag alongside theref
tag. Following the OSM Wiki guidelines, thepenndot_ref
tags were deleted for these routes. - @rickmastfan67 pointed out that 4 nodes with exit numbers were wrongly re-tagged to
ref:penndot
in this process. This change was reverted back here
Next Action
- 37 routes were found where
SR****
is followed by a non-state route number likeT***
,PA ***
,Historic PA ***
- 79 routes were found where a non-state route number like
T***
,PA ***
,Historic PA ***
is followed bySR ****
For the above 116 routes, the ref
tags were not changed to ref:penndot
as we’re unsure of the correct tagging convention for these cases. We would appreciate any input on what would be the correct way to tag them and if the 29 similar routes that were unintentionally re-tagged to ref:penndot
in the second step need to be reverted back.
Discussion