[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
ian.dees at gmail.com
Sat Oct 16 03:52:11 BST 2010
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>wrote:
> On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense
>> > isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?
>> No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas
>> officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county
> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
> or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
> our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
> network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
> renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
> i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
> its own, separate tag.
> i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
> route involves using the actual county name, e.g.
> rather than a more generic CO, CR, CH or what have you, and i
> find i can't really argue against that. using the generic value means
> you can't distinguish between CR 1 in Albany County and CR 1 in the
> adjacent Rensselaer County based on the network and ref tags.
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us