[Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes

Richard Weait richard at weait.com
Wed Mar 14 16:27:14 GMT 2012


On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Phil! Gold <phil_g at pobox.com> wrote:
> * Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
>> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
>> option of those above.
>
> Why?

Why add a tag to further describe an arcane, minor detail, in a small
portion of the world, when we already have network to do exactly that?
 :-)

>> increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt
>> follows the original intent of the network tag.  It also offers the
>> least surprise to naive consumers of the data.
>
> So you get the reverse questions from NE2.  };>  We (so far) mostly use
> the network tag as a hierarchy of ownership, not containment: the US:MD
> network is for Maryland's roads and Maryland is in the US, but its roads
> are not members of the "US" network.  Does it make sense to double up on
> the meanings of network tags, so that, say, US:NJ:Business would be a
> business route that's a member of the New Jersey state highway network,
> but US:NJ:CR would be a county road that's not a member of the state
> network?  Is it still easier for data consumers if they have to
> differentiate between those two cases?
>
> Compared to the scenario where we add a modifier tag for special routes,
> data consumers already have to consider two tags to work with route
> relations.  Would adding a third make a difference?

As I said, "We already got one."  :-)

I've always considered network as "describing the sign" and ref as
"the number on it".  When we describe even more details of the sign,
that should stay in the same tag.  So US 66 (Historic),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Route66_sign.jpg
would be
ref = 66
network = US:US:historic



More information about the Tagging mailing list