[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Tue Oct 26 14:57:52 BST 2010


Toby Murray <toby.murray at gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>> On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> I like it, though it should be pointed out that this is more difficult
>> unless we're talking about route relations.
>
> I kind of like this system as well. It is clear and easy to
> understand. The only problem (as pointed out before) is that it breaks
> the network tag compared to the rest of the world. Can we use it
> anyway? :)

What about making it "network=US:state" or "network=US:county"?  That
way it's easy to tell US states apart from states in other countries.
Does that ruin its simplicity and elegance?
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \



More information about the Talk-us mailing list