Unsigned routes should not be included in the transportation_name layer about openmaptiles HOT 3 OPEN

This is based (IMO) on the erroneous tagging of unsigned routes as "unsigned=yes". They should be tagged with "unsigned_ref". Tagging as "unsigned" in the given example would imply that there is not only no signage for the highway designation, but no signage for the "street name" (which presumably is not the case).

It would seem better to simply fix the erroneous tagging.

from openmaptiles.

Tagging as "unsigned" in the given example would imply that there is not only no signage for the highway designation, but no signage for the "street name" (which presumably is not the case).

I am talking about the tagging of the relation, not the tagging of the way. Tagging unsigned=yes on the route relation for the I 375 Business Spur simply indicates that the I 375 Business Spur is unsigned. The street name (East Jefferson Avenue) comes from the highway way and has nothing to do with the route relation.

from openmaptiles.

Apparently I misunderstood the example you gave... after "driving" it on street view, I now get that there are actually no signs for the route whatsoever... it's not a "virtual congruency" but a "virtual highway". The "highway" signs along it are all directional ("to" whatever).

It still seems relevant, though, that the physical feature that is actually being mapped (the road) does itself have signs, they just don't show the highway designation... I think that's the specific point that unsigned_ref is meant to capture. TBH using "unsigned=yes" on a relation that has members that do have signs (even if they say something else) seems a bit too abstract, when you can use "unsigned_ref" to point at the specific trait that isn't marked.

from openmaptiles.