[Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

James Mast rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
Thu Nov 28 22:43:25 UTC 2013


We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments that are hidden.

Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when they leave the Interstates.  I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.  They would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields along that way.

As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag in the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).

Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?

-James
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20131128/bfd71f65/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list