[talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....

[BlueMM]

John Smith-129 wrote:
> 
> --- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM <bluemm1975-osm at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A few questions:
>> 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for this to work,
>> but
>> :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for state specific
>> sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need state).
> 
> The states vary on different shields, not just state routes.
> 
But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield design), why specify
state?
I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, but I suggest we
mention drop the state for know national shields.

John Smith-129 wrote:
> 
>> 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there doesn't seem
>> to
>> be any problem with having just one relation, combining the tags. I think
>> this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good thing).
> 
> I haven't started work on state based highways, been working on highway 1
> mostly, and it changes names a fair bit, but I still think 2 relations
> would be better than lumping it together and for consistency with other
> highways.
> 
I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are for eg. C123 and
called TownA-TownB Road.
It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the separate ref/name
relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got ideas/opinions?

John Smith-129 wrote:
> 
> [[SNIP]]
> Exactly, and bridges, and not naming ways reduces the chance of error, and
> the ease to fix up errors, and reduces a lot of redundancy because the
> same name doesn't have to be added to 100s of ways.
> 
Sweet, that was my reasoning as well.
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this....-tp24970890p25002516.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.