[Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

[Paul Johnson]

Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional
(above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to
bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good
idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of bike networks that
don't always fit the Sustrans schema cleanly, like greater Tulsa's INCOG
network or greater Portland's Metro Region network, that don't get
distinguished from the more minor county and city networks).
On Jun 25, 2013 11:08 AM, "Martijn van Exel" <m at rtijn.org> wrote:

> But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no
> 'children', right?
>
> If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be
> the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route
> and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is
> imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130625/32bbc77d/attachment.html>