[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Andrew S. J. Sawyer assawyer at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 15:19:26 BST 2010


I like Zeke's approach.

Andrew


On 10/25/2010, Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Ian Dees <ian.dees at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what to call it, but values would be interstate, us_route,
>> state_route, county_route, etc. The specific information about what
>> county/state it's in, the human readable name, the prefix, etc. should all
>> be stored in different tags (and not stuffed into one long network=* tag).
>>
>
>
> This sounds like a great use for the network tag to me.  There are basically
> 4 highway networks in this country:  Interstate, US, State, and County.  I
> know that technically each state and county has it's own separate network,
> but most renderers are just going to display generic shields for state &
> county.  For those who do want to render different shields for each state
> and/or county routes why not use sub tags as we commonly do for many other
> osm features:
>
> For Michigan route 12:
> ref=12
> network=state
> state=michigan
>
> For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont:
> ref=16
> network=county
> state=vermont
> county=bennington
>
>
> Zeke
>



More information about the Talk-us mailing list