[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Phil! Gold phil_g at pobox.com
Mon Oct 25 15:57:55 BST 2010

* Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> [2010-10-25 09:43 -0400]:
> 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

Ian has suggested the established is_in= tag for this purpose, and Alex
Mauer has suggested a relation that contains all the routes for a (state
or lower) network.

Personally, of those two, I think I prefer is_in=.

> For Michigan route 12:
> ref=12
> network=state
> state=michigan

Keep in mind that any tagging we do needs to be compatible with global
usage, and network= is already in use.  I'd suggest something along the
lines of "US:State" and "US:County" to fit in with "US:I" and "US:US".
(And also to continue keeping our own namespace for values.)

...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
  "Quick, you must come with me," she said.  You're in great danger!"
  "Because I will kill you if you don't."
                       -- _Sourcery_, Terry Pratchett
---- --- --

More information about the Talk-us mailing list