<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'>There is one other. I mentioned it in my e-mail from yesterday (07-09-13). That is I-295 in Fayetteville.<BR> <BR><a href="http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html">http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html</a><BR> <BR>And to be honest, I thought some people wanted the ":Future" part dropped out and just put in the "modifier" area.<BR> <BR>-James<br> <BR><div>> Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:40:58 -0400<br>> From: phil_g@pobox.com<br>> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org<br>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations<br>> <br>> * James Mast <rickmastfan67@hotmail.com> [2013-07-09 01:40 -0400]:<br>> > So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with<br>> > tagging these "Future" Interstates?<br>> <br>> Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form:<br>> <br>> network=US:I:Future<br>> ref=<number><br>> modifier=Future<br>> <br>> and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd<br>> recommend tagging as above.<br>> <br>> Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and<br>> 840. Are there any others?<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Talk-us mailing list<br>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org<br>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us<br></div> </div></body>
</html>