[Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List

[Joseph Jon Booker]

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:45:23 -0700
Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
> 
> > Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as
> > the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name="I 90", and
> > network=US:IL, ref=58 would have name="IL 58" in the relations.
> 
> Not really, no.  Many Interstate routes have official names that have
> nothing to do with their status or route number:  See Pacific Highway,
> Golden State Freeway, and Baldock Freeway to name a few (and that's
> just I-5!

The relation for I-5 should not be tagged with that name= any of those
then. What about having a relation for I-5 that goes through all of
those ways and another route relation, with name="Pacific Highway" (and
ref,network as blank), where they coincide?

Around here, we have a Skokie Highway which is part street, part
cosigned with I 94, and part its own highway, so this covers that case.

-- 
Joseph Booker
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20090412/f09b6f0d/attachment.pgp>