[Talk-us] exit_to vs destination

[Bill R. WASHBURN]

James, it couldn't hurt to bring them in on it. Canada and the US
coordinate to some degree on many standards including some collaboration on
signage standards. It shouldn't really just be a US or North American
standard, in the end; anywhere that has highway off ramps should probably
be using the same standard, no matter what the standard ends up being.

Re: the Canadian method, I feel like using the name= key on the exit node
basically depends on the renderer to provide the information. Navigation
software programmers can teach navigation software to deal with this
method. At the next junction to the southwest of the node in your example,
the many named nodes seem to clutter the map. I'm not (yet) opposed to
using the Canadian method but I think we should approach it with caution.

Also, the Canadian method does not seem to give any hints as to which lanes
exit the highway and how many lanes are available for those exiting. The
method of tagging the exit way with number of lanes and the destination
information lets the navigation renderer figure that out.


Bill R. WASHBURN


On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 10:38 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Anybody else think we should CC [talk-ca] in on this too?  Main reason I'm
> suggesting this is because of how they (at least in Ontario) have been
> doing the exit tags, which is to add everything to the 'name' tag so it
> gets rendered on the map (at least I think that was why it was done this
> way, but not 100% sure)..
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/76478134
>
> -James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140716/86deb24e/attachment.html>