[Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
phil_g at pobox.com
Tue Oct 30 16:01:35 GMT 2012
* Andrew Errington <erringtona at gmail.com> [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' <vidthekid at gmail.com> wrote:
> > using something like "ref:unsigned=OH 315C" to mean "this road is part of
> > Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so" sounds perfectly sane to
> > me.
> It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it
> does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign
> or not.
I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I
suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference
numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would
primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty
hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference
in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers.
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-)
-- Larry Wall
More information about the Tagging