[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:


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

Jeff Ollie

More information about the Talk-us mailing list