[Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations

Richard Welty rwelty at averillpark.net
Mon Feb 8 23:30:27 GMT 2010

On 2/8/10 5:57 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> quite. the format for ref in relations is very clear, for example
>     network=US:I
>     ref=95
> Don't think this is clear. US:I is wrong, the network is only I. Any 
> consumer application can figure out that it is in US by itself. as an 
> example mkgmap currently supports custom shields and does it based on 
> the way refs. But with US:I an application has to filter the US: 
> specifically for this kind of network which isn't used anywhere else.
> if you think the state, country info is needed as a tag use is_in or 
> an addr:* tag
> combining different values in a single tag makes it too complicated to 
> consume data.
there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and 
what the wiki calls for. from


we see:

network=US:I, US:I:BUSINESS, US:I:DOWNTOWN, US:I:FUTURE      Required. 
Business, downtown and future routes have their own signage


ref=*                                     Required. ex. 90

and many people have been busy building relations to fit this specification.


ref=*     ex. 20

and so forth.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100208/80ce6b59/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list