[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Andrew S. J. Sawyer assawyer at gmail.com
Tue Oct 26 21:25:33 BST 2010


Is there a reason to have the network tag with "networkUS:state:county"
instead of three separate tags for "network:country" "network:state" and
"network:county" in the case of county roads and two in the case of state,
etc. Having a "network:country=" tag will clear up any confusion in which
country the route is in.

I don't think a simple US:state:county tag will suffice as people have
complained about parsing. Such a tag would likely have to be tagged
"network:location=US:state:county" as you would have to differentiate
between interstates, highways, etc. easily. By having a network and location
tags you could know the location and type of road. Additionally this would
allow for rendering of shields or determining the type route for other
rendering differentiation purposes.

I think because other tags break out location based on country, state,
county, etc it would be wise to also do so with network tagging. There are
many counties that have the same name that are in different locations. Other
OSM users have expressed issues with relying on pre-possessing to gather
location data.

Andrew

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 09:57, Peter Budny <peterb at gatech.edu> wrote:

> 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 \
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20101026/8ab06300/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list