<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with tagging these "Future" Interstates? I just "remembered" there was one other Interstate in NC posted this way, I-295 [1] in Fayetteville, NC. So, I've fixed that relation as well to follow the network way I originally suggested till we all, once and for all, have decided on the way to tag these.<BR> <BR>-James<BR> <BR> <BR>[1] - <a href="http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html">http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html</a><br> <BR><div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: rickmastfan67@hotmail.com<br>To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org<br>Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:15:36 -0400<br>Subject: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations<br><br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
padding:0px;
}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {
font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri;
}
--></style>
<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>
<br>_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</div> </div></body>
</html>