[Talk-us] ref tags

[James Mast]

> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:28:12 -0400
> From: phil_g at pobox.com
> To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
> 
> * James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]:
> 
> > the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to
> > be a "Future" Interstate and it is posted as such with "FUTURE" tabs
> > above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word
> > "Interstate" in the shields itself.
> 
> Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these
> (US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations?  If
> there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my
> rendering for them.
> 
> 

 
Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a "Future I-26" shield:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
 
And here's one for I-74 in NC along the Rockingham US-74 Bypass when I was on it a few years ago:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg
 
And for quick reference, here's a I-840 from StreetView:
http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs
 
And a Future I-73/I-840 combo from StreetView:
http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG
 
It seems that only NC seems to do it this way.  Don't know of any other states that post "Future" Interstates except for those "Future I-xx Corridor" signs" (NC does that too on highways that aren't going to be part of a future Interstate).
 
-James
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130622/75d5a3db/attachment.html>