[OSM-talk] Fwd: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
chunter952 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 01:01:49 GMT 2010
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>wrote:
> there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what
> the wiki calls for. from
Agreed. One of the reasons I started this discussion was to make sure that
what the wiki calls for is still "right". As far as rendering the shields
go, I think we should stick with the established tagging scheme and let
whoever writes the parser worry about stripping the network=US: out of US:*
> we see:
> network=US:I, US:I:BUSINESS, US:I:DOWNTOWN, US:I:FUTURE Required.
> Business, downtown and future routes have their own signage
> ref=* Required. ex. 90
> and many people have been busy building relations to fit this
> ref=* ex. 20
> and so forth.
> Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one
to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation
with rolls per state question.
The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like only
interstates I-24, I-26, I-84 were merged from 2-relations into 1-relation
with roles. The rest of the system still has the relation numbers listed in
the WIKI. From what I can see, it looks like there's no clear winner
between the two systems, although quite a few Interstates are still missing
I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the
1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that
need to be split into dual carriageways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk