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

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Oct 16 23:01:10 BST 2010


On 10/15/2010 11:47 AM, Val Kartchner wrote:

> The standard should be something easy to parse.  Perhaps, for the above
> example, it would be "US:UT:SR-67".  This would allow an easy way to
> parse which shield to use.  For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
> be "CA:BC:12".  The colons would designate a field, and a space or dash
> would indicate a subfield.  The renderer could just use all but the last
> field to figure out which shield to use ("US:UT" or "CA:BC"), then use
> the last subfield of the last field to draw the shield.  This would work
> for an instance I've seen in New Hampshire which would be "US:NH:3A".

This is why we have route relations.  It's getting to the point of
ridiculous that we don't have proper rendering of something as basic as
a route relation.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101016/ae982644/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list