National road numbers

If you mean that ref=* to nat_ref=* edits, then that is in the first post, plus:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/66711863
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/68521640

Furthermore, the editor doesn’t leave a reasonable changeset comment.

where were you when mapfinder was changing everything??when i was reverting his changes every day??He is the one that wanted the names in genitive case…after a point i just went with it, since nobody cared…and now i am the one on the cross

i think we should vote again on national highway numbers and names

my opinion is that these national highway numbers are relics from the past and should not appear on maps, we could put them in nat_ref purely for documentation, i think we should only use ref for motorway numbers (well defined by law in 2015).

About new and old national highways:
-how should we name the road connecting Vevi with Arnissa (its still EO2, although there is a new road in the south), to name it old national highway is wrong
-EO65 (there is a new road connecting thessaloniki with Kilkis, but is not mentioned anywhere that the new road is EO65), should the original road be named old national highway?
-there are so many other examples where the original route is still the official route of the national highway and we should not name it old national highway

ika-chan! talked clearly about nat_ref & ref and not at all about genitive case.

Anyway, the numbers should be redefined.
The Greek authorities do not remove numbers (on signs) from old roads. You may still see signs with E65 on old highway, although there is the new E65 at Thessaly. Not even milestones are updated.
So we have 2 points to be resolved:
Should “ref” be removed initiated by us, or should we be synchronized with Greek authorities?
Should “ref” be written as “nat_ref” to old highways with same numbers? or even to a format like “old_ref”?

@JayCBR Σε παρακαλώ χρησιμοποίησε την βάση δεδομένων σε πρόγραμμα navigator (Garmin Navi ή maps.me) και πες μου ποια διατύπωση σου φαίνεται ορθή. Η ονομαστική ή η γενική;

i blame you for your attitude, for me personally genitive is better

Θα απαντήσω στο πρώτο προς το παρόν το οποίο μελέτησα.
Το κομμάτι αυτό (Βεύη-Άρνισσα) δεν έχει αντικατασταθεί από το νότιο κομμάτι (που κάνει τον γύρο). Το νότιο κομμάτι εξυπηρετεί άλλο σκοπό.
Η ΕΟ2 εδώ παραμένει όπως είναι τώρα. Όμως δεν κατάλαβα για ποιό λόγο είναι trunk.(το νότιο κομμάτι)

Για την ΕΟ65:
Εδώ τα πράγματα φαίνονται λίγο μπερδεμένα αλλά δεν είναι.
Το κομμάτι της ΕΟ65 από Θεσσαλονίκη μέχρι Νέα Σάντα παραμένει το ίδιο. (το κομμάτι Λητή-Νέα Σάντα είναι εκτός παιχνιδιού και απορώ γιατί είναι primary).
Από Νέα Σάντα μέχρι Κρηστώνη έχει αντικατασταθεί από την νέα χάραξη, οπότε το ref ΕΟ65 πάει στην νέα χάραξη και το old_ref στην παλιά (με τις ανάλογες ονομασίες αντίστοιχα).
Ακόμη και το G**gle m@ps (που το βρίζω συνέχεια για τα λάθη του) το έχει σωστά.

@JayCBR you blame me to ika-chan! ???

@map-finder γενικά λέω δεν συμφωνώ με πολλά που λες και κυρίως τον τρόπο που τα λες…αυτά

Πιστεύω πως τελικά θα συντονιστούμε και θα κάνουμε καλή ομάδα.

Hello,

I would stick to ref=* numbering for all roads that have been officially numbered by the state authorities.
nat_ref is far less frequently used and its semantics is not well documented. Indeed we have ~8 000 000 road segments tagged to ref and just ~100 000 tagged to nat_ref, or a ratio of 80:1.

In Bulgaria where I am from, we rely on a state-published document that lists all road numbers, their class and their from-by-to locations ( https://www.mrrb.bg/static/media/ups/articles/attachments/aa6dd5cde9adf3d613b8a42fa1d79ace.doc ).

Best regards,
Dido

I TOTALLY agree with that.

i understand ref is the main tag for road numbering, nobody doubts this

the main reason i proposed nat_ref is that this numbering scheme is vague, not specifying what happens with old and new sections coexisting, also bypassing cities is not supported by any official documents

the majority of signs on the ground are obsolete, wrong or they dont mention road numbers whatsoever

i think this numbering scheme does not serve any purpose, it only makes things complicated and confusing

thats my point of view

Since numbering of the highways is universal, common for everyone either they live at Greece or abroad, the tags nat_ref, reg_ref are useless.
Only in case, that there were not existence of prefix A, EO or ΕΠ this tag should be useful.
For example, ref:1 (that should mean A1), nat_ref:01 (that should mean EO1) and finally reg_ref:40 (that should mean ΕΠ40)
Only the creator of these tags should give as an answer on what he did exactly mean.

the only prefix is A for motorways and they are mentioned in the latest goverment decision in 2015

there are no prefixes ΕΟ and ΕΠ, they are just abbreviations of Εθνική Οδός (National Highway) and ΕΠαρχιακή οδός (provincial road)

we decided to use reg_ref just because these provincial road numbers are local (there are about 40 ΕΠ1) and we are also use network=GR:provincial with a number for each prefecture, also there no provincial road signs anywhere

there are also unofficial refs for new sections mentioned in okxe maps and road statistics documents, like X16 and ΕΟ1Β which should not be seen in openstreetmap as they are not appear in any signs

Yes, you are right, the right word is abbreviation.

But does it make any useful difference the usage of reg_ref/nat_ref instead of single ref?
It is not even printed on the map, if I noticed well.
How is it used at other countries?

I make a custom GARMIN map of Greece out of the OSM data you provide, targeted at mountaineering and outdoor activities. It is just the ref road ID I take and put as a road name. If you omit the ΕΟ/ΕΠ abbreviations of Εθνική Οδός/ΕΠαρχιακή οδός, I will simply not display them, which is obviously wrong.

ΕΟ/ΕΠ have their semantics too and my opinion is that they should be present along with the numbers.

Greetings,
Dido

So I noticed well. reg & nat ref do not appear on any data of the map!

thats the whole point, we dont want nat_ref and reg_ref to appear anywhere, they are used simply for documentation, as you will never see X16 and ΕΠ2 on signs in real life

dido3 the fact that you are using refs as names doesnt concern us here, i hope you understand this

Correct me if I misunderstood. If you mean that these tags do not get displayed on the map at osm.org, this does not mean something is right or wrong. What we see at osm.org is just one of the possible maps that someone can create with the data. I like to think of it as a simple preview, useful for us editors, not the best map for general use.

As I said, these tags do not appear on the map, I didnt say that these tags are loss of data.
But if these tags is important to be visible, there should be in a diferent usage.

Where and when exactly did mappas or anyone else said anything about “loss of data”???