[Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Tue Oct 26 23:33:07 BST 2010


"Andrew S. J. Sawyer" <assawyer at gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

I may not have been very clear... if that's the case I apologize.

What I meant was, is there a way to include just a little more
information so that we can distinguish between, say, US states and
Mexican states.  If the tags only say "network=state" and "state=*" we
lose some information.

My proposal was to have "network=US:state" (literally, not putting the
state name there) and "state=*".

However, I think your idea may be a better one. It would give us
network=state
network:country=US
network:state=California

or
network=county
network:country=US
network:state=California
network:county=Orange

I support something like this because it gives us enough information
that we can pretty easily convert to another format (relations, or some
other tag representation) later with automated tools.  And it makes
querying easier, since you don't have to do polygon searches to figure
out whether e.g. the route it part of a US state or a Mexican state.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \



More information about the Talk-us mailing list