[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

[Zeke Farwell]

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know what to call it, but values would be interstate, us_route,
> state_route, county_route, etc. The specific information about what
> county/state it's in, the human readable name, the prefix, etc. should all
> be stored in different tags (and not stuffed into one long network=* tag).
>


This sounds like a great use for the network tag to me.  There are basically
4 highway networks in this country:  Interstate, US, State, and County.  I
know that technically each state and county has it's own separate network,
but most renderers are just going to display generic shields for state &
county.  For those who do want to render different shields for each state
and/or county routes why not use sub tags as we commonly do for many other
osm features:

For Michigan route 12:
ref=12
network=state
state=michigan

For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont:
ref=16
network=county
state=vermont
county=bennington


Zeke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101025/6c22f7a8/attachment.html>