[Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Phil! Gold <phil_g at pobox.com> wrote:

> * Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> [2012-04-12 16:03 -0400]:
>> Also I-270 Spur in Maryland, which *is* part of the Interstate
>> Highway System and thus belongs in network=US:I
>
> First off, I still feel that there was a consensus last year on using the
> network tag for distinct network subsets as well as for mainline roads and
> you, despite being the only dissenter, continue to argue against something
> the rest of community more or less settled on.
>
> Secondly, I think this highlights a reason to use network subsets in the
> network tag: because it's a simpler rule to apply than deciding whether a
> variant route is different enough to deserve its own network value.  You
> seem to have a clear idea about what constitutes a network from your
> perspective--Interstate 75 Alternate and Downtown Interstates do, but
> Interstate 270 Spur doesn't.  I think there's a lot of grey area where
> people with different perspectives would disagree[0], especially mappers
> who just want to represent what they see on the signs where they live
> without arguing the minutiae of which road network a route is really a
> member of.
>
> In short, you seem to want to have the final say about what is or isn't a
> "real" network, but OpenStreetMap is a community effort and not only does
> the "network tag can have distinct values for network subsets" scheme
> appear to have broader community support, but it also seems to me to be
> the most generally applicable by people who in all likelihood will have
> different opinions about what *really* constitutes a distinct road
> network.

Wait, what?  I was under the impression that the "banners as a
network" thing was proposed initially in this discussion, given that
the "modifier" tag has been documented in the wiki for well over a
year now.  And it makes a lot more sense, since bannered routes aren't
a different network.

> [0] I feel, for instance, that I could make a convincing argument either
>    way as to whether Texas's loop roads should count as their own network
>    or should be part of the state's main network.

Texas considers itself to have multiple state networks (Texas, Park,
Rec, NASA, Loop, Spur).  What's not entirely obvious is if toll routes
are their own network (like Kansas and Oklahoma) or merely a bannered
route.

>    Likewise for routes
>    signed as US 1, US 1A, and US 1 Alternate.

Those would be the same network, though US 1A and 1 Alternate may be
the same route.