[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Andrew S. J. Sawyer assawyer at gmail.com
Mon Oct 25 16:22:58 BST 2010

I also agree with Phil. The operative tag is the "network" tag. Which
should refer to either country, state, county as found in the "is_in"
tags, without having to have a "new" tag. I think this is the way to


On 10/25/2010, Phil! Gold <phil_g at pobox.com> wrote:
> * 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!"
>   "Why?"
>   "Because I will kill you if you don't."
>                        -- _Sourcery_, Terry Pratchett
> ---- --- --
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

More information about the Talk-us mailing list