[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
ian.dees at gmail.com
Sat Oct 23 16:43:14 BST 2010
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Craig Hinners <craig at hinnerspace.com>wrote:
> > > On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
> > > Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin
> > > 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have ref=10;66;39.
> > > very useful for determining which is which.
> This is why I keep arguing for using *non-ambiguous tag names*: the
> "what" should go in the tag name, and the "which" should go in the tag
> value. So, instead of the current situation where we have half a
> bazillion ways with a "network" tag name, you'd have:
> network:country[US]:unitedStatesHighway = 10
> network:country[US]:state[WI] = 66
> network:country[US]:interstate = 39
Why are we shoving so much information into one tag? This level of detail
should be broken into separate tags so that a renderer or other data user
doesn't have to write a text parser for the network tag.
We need two sets of information: the detailed, specific information (which
state a route is in, the route number or code) and the general information
(what kind of route it is (e.g. interstate, state, county road)). These two
sets of information should be in different tags, not shoved together into
one big long tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us