[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
ian.dees at gmail.com
Sat Oct 30 16:39:57 BST 2010
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Val Kartchner <val42k at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 14:30 -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > I'm not talking about shield placement. I mean that the
> > specific
> > shield designs themselves are often cluttered. In certain
> > states that
> > have multiple systems (Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee) it
> > may make
> > sense to use a simplified version of the shields (although all
> > of
> > these but Tennessee's primary are already as simple as
> > possible), but
> > there's no reason except prettiness to prefer the Colorado
> > shield over
> > a simpler rectangle.
> > Oh, right. At least in the rendering I'm planning on eventually doing
> > I won't use state/county-specific shields. I'll probably go with the
> > regular white shield and ovals. Too much shield differentiation makes
> > stuff cluttered.
> Well then, it appears that the consensus is to leave things as-is. At
> least we've settled on this point.
"As-is" means silly little pill-shaped shields with the "ref" tag value in
it every few pixels because the current styles use ways to place the
What I'm shooting for is shields that more closely resemble what you see on
the road in the US and more evenly placed (because they're coming from route
> Now, can we settle on whether to use "ref=" or tag with relations?
I thought this had been decided: we decided on route relations with various
tags designating the kind (interstate/state/county route), the number, and
the name. The ways retain their information for backwards compatibility.
Route relations already exist for interstates and US routes and many of the
county roads, so there may simply be some retagging to do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us