May I introduce myself? I am Steve All, you may read something about me here: http://www.adventurecycling.org/resources/blog/openstreetmap-the-web-based-mapping-project
I live in California. I asked Penny Gray (Caltrans Bicycle Program Manager) whether the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route (PCBR) had a number designation, as it was confusingly called "1" in OpenStreetMap (OSM). She told me (and I quote): The route has been referred to as the Pacific Coast Bicycle Route and not as a specific route number, based on info that I can find.
I removed the "ref=1" tag in OSM, but then the route displayed as the usual state-level (turquoise) route, but without a "shield" or little-number-in-a-box. I got to thinking....
Because it is quite likely that PCBR will become USBR 95, I then decided (as a California Citizen) to "assert" the number 95, at a statewide level (rcn for "regional (statewide) cycleway network" number) for the PCBR. It is an actual route, in OSM it has tags:
network=rcn (meaning "regional," or statewide in the USA, not national or local)
name=Pacific Coast Bicycle Route
So, I added a ref=PC95 tag, meaning that I assert 95 as a statewide
(not national, or ncn) number in preparation for this "now state 95, in the future likely to become national/USBR 95" route.
I'm OK with this, as the route seemed to need a number at the state level. What better one to choose than 95?!
Indeed, San Francisco does something similar by conflating its "local 95" route with what San Franciscans envision as becoming the "national 95" route -- look along the Great Highway here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/37.7447/-122.4081&layers=C
All I'm doing is "filling in the middle" to allow a smooth transition.