<div dir="ltr">I prefer your proposal, I find it more aesthetically pleasing. From a developer's perspective, it's one less separate tag to read and parse. No big fundamental objections to doing it the other way, however. As long as we arrive at one convention and stick with it.<div>
<br></div><div style>Martijn</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM, James Mast <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" target="_blank">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div><div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are still being used too)<br>
<br>Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions for the different styles):</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>I-26: <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg</a><br>
I-73: <a href="http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG</a><br>I-74: <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg</a><br>
I-840: <a href="http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs</a><br></div><div dir="ltr">Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments inside of relations:</div>
<div dir="ltr">network=US:I:Future</div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr">However, somebody else suggested this:<br>network=US:I <div>modifier=Future</div></div><div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr">Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet.</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div><div dir="ltr">-James (rickmastfan67)</div>
</div>
</div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Martijn van Exel<br><a href="http://oegeo.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://oegeo.wordpress.com/</a><br><a href="http://openstreetmap.us/" target="_blank">http://openstreetmap.us/</a>
</div>