[Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Thu Jun 27 04:25:00 UTC 2013


Looks like the "spur" extends the "loop," I'm not sure I'd differentiate
them in modifier, but might in the description.  A little surprised I
didn't catch that, though to be fair, I was more closely trying to follow
Historic US 66 trailblazers last time I was there (I'm too lazy to look
over my old G+ posts right now, but I think I stayed the night in Winslow
because it was getting dark and I was driving the historic route for the
sights after leaving Meteor Crater.  My plan got blown the day after that
one when I forgot labor day weekend is a big rodeo weekend, and i wasn't
able to find a motel room anywhere between Albuquerque and home, meaning I
drove from Albuquerque to Tulsa in a single, 19-hour journey, making local
stops until it got too dark to do anything (roughly the giant cross in
north texas) and everything was closed for the night, if not the long
weekend (roughly by the time I got to Clinton, OK), which was disappointing
since Oklahoma's segment of US 66 is about the most landmark rich part of
the western half of 66, save for Oatman-Santa Monica Pier...)


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>wrote:

> There are two Interstate Business Routes in Winslow, AZ for I-40 that
> intersect each other.
> I-40 Business Spur http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1933534
> I-40 Business Loop http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1933535
>
> -James
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:41:06 -0500
>
> From: baloo at ursamundi.org
> To: rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
> CC: m at rtijn.org; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
>
> Modifier would be able to handle both situations, but is there a situation
> where a business loop or spur with the same number meet that would
> necessitate getting to that level of specificity?
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route?  Remember,
> we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for Interstate highways.
> Sometimes both types in the same city.
>
> -James
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:06:58 -0500
> From: baloo at ursamundi.org
> To: rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
> CC: m at rtijn.org; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
>
> That'd be modifier=Business, no?  US:US has no lower level, unlike say,
> US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain
> US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like
> US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa...
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>wrote:
>
> Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'?
>
>
> ------------------------------
> From: m at rtijn.org
> Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600
> To: baloo at ursamundi.org
> CC: rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com; talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
>
>
> 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/
>
> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20130626/7c1373c5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list