[Talk-us] State Route relations (was: Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns))

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Sat Oct 16 06:41:15 BST 2010

This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
particular part of it:

As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route relations for
State Roads.  (The Interstates and US Highways are mostly finished, it
seems, but there are tens of thousands of state routes that haven't been

I'd love to see a consensus on how to tag these roads come pretty
quickly, as I'll need to have something finished in less than 2 months
(school schedules are rough, man!).

So far, it seems to be something like
network=US:NY  <- state abbreviation
ref=87         <- number only

or for county roads,
network=US:NY:Albany  <- full county name

One thing I /haven't/ seen addressed yet is whether single relations are
preferred, or one relation for each way with a super-relation.
Currently both are in use, but I think it would be a lot easier for
future code if we pick one and move towards it from now on.

~ Peter Budny

P.S. Before you write to tell me bots aren't welcome... stop.  We
already had this discussion out on dev.  I'm going to be developing
against a sandbox database, and not uploading any changes (yet).  I'll
start by sharing changeset files with the lists to give everyone a
chance to nitpick and find mistakes.  And when the robot is "ready", I
may still run it by publishing changeset files and letting people
integrate them manually.  So please don't write to say I don't know what
I'm doing and my contributions aren't welcome.
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

More information about the Talk-us mailing list