<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Modifier would be able to handle both situations, but is there a situation where a business loop or spur with the same number meet that would necessitate getting to that level of specificity?<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:34 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">I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route? Remember, we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for Interstate highways. Sometimes both types in the same city.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>-James<br></font></span><div class="hm HOEnZb"> <br></div><div><div class="hm HOEnZb"><hr>Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:06:58 -0500<br>From: <a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" target="_blank">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org" target="_blank">m@rtijn.org</a>; <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></div>
<div><div class="h5"><br>Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations<br><br><div dir="ltr">That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa...</div>
<div><br><br><div>On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" target="_blank">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div><div dir="ltr">Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'?<br><div><br> <br></div><div><div><hr>From: <a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org" target="_blank">m@rtijn.org</a><br>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600<br>To: <a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" target="_blank">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>; <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations</div><div><div><br><br><div dir="ltr">But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no 'children', right?<div><br></div><div>
If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable.</div>
</div><div><br><br><div>On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><p dir="ltr">I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. </p>
<div><div><div>On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" <<a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com" target="_blank">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote style="padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><div><div>
<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></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">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></div></blockquote></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">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>
<br>_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></div></div></div> </div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a></div></div></div> </div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>