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

Ian Dees ian.dees at gmail.com
Tue Oct 19 01:23:34 BST 2010

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:

> On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> 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.
> For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers
> can only handle ways for now…
This is a data project, not a renderer project. If the renderers aren't
doing the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing. Lars
Ahlzen and I have been thinking about ways to get the renderer to show the
highway shield and it appears that osm2pgsql creates a geometry for each of
the route relations, meaning that highway shields can be rendered
"correctly" with a bit of Mapnik stylesheet hacking.

> Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin Highway
> 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have ref=10;66;39.  Not
> very useful for determining which is which.

That's what routes are for.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101018/f351d3d8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list