[Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations

Jeffrey Ollie jeff at ocjtech.us
Mon Feb 8 19:43:30 GMT 2010


On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net> wrote:
> Jeffrey Ollie <jeff at ocjtech.us> writes:
>
>> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs.   From
>> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the
>> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)".
>
> And I don't like this at all.  First, this seems to be different than
> how this is handled in many other places in the world.  From what I
> have seen in Europe there is always the complete designation how it is
> found on highway shields used in the ref tag.

I don't know if you have travelled much in the US and I've never been
to Europe, but US road signs are pretty minimal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-80.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_69.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_3.svg

The color and shape of the sign is used to distinguish different types
of routes.

> Second, separating out the highway system requires the data consuming
> application to know how to piece things back together.  Otherwise, a
> shield on a map for example with just a "25" in it is pretty limited in
> use.

Again, the color and shape of the shield is used to distinguish different routes

> Third, I consider a reference containing just the number to be
> incomplete.  IMHO, the ref tag should contain the complete designation
> of a piece of highway.  This also makes it easier to search for this.

That's why I set the name tag on the relation to something a little
more descriptive.

Obviously, this scheme works only in the US, which is why the
"network" tag is used to distinguish US routes from those in other
countries.

-- 
Jeff Ollie




More information about the Talk-us mailing list