[Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

[Paul Johnson]

I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being
confused with a county level network.
On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the
> following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the
> segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as
> "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are
> still being used too)
>
> Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly
> stating they are "Future Interstates".  I'm not going to be doing anything
> like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors".  The signage
> has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions
> for the different styles):
>
> I-26:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
> I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG
> I-74:
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg
> I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs
> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments
> inside of relations:
> network=US:I:Future
>
> However, somebody else suggested this:
> network=US:I
> modifier=Future
>
> Which do you guys think would be the better way to go?  I can always
> change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme
> for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet.
>
> -James (rickmastfan67)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130625/6b5054c4/attachment.html>