Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 04/10/2011 06:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2011-04-10 14:00, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: What's the consensus for county roads in the US? I don't know what the consensus is. County roads in California are of the form [A-Z][0-9][0-9]. I tag Orange County route S18 as: network=US:CA:Orange + ref=CR S18 I'd drop the CR prefix since that's more of a network identifier than a reference number. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/13/11 10:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 04/10/2011 06:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2011-04-10 14:00, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: What's the consensus for county roads in the US? I don't know what the consensus is. County roads in California are of the form [A-Z][0-9][0-9]. I tag Orange County route S18 as: network=US:CA:Orange + ref=CR S18 I'd drop the CR prefix since that's more of a network identifier than a reference number. on relations, yes. on ways, no. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/13/2011 10:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: network=US:CA:Orange + ref=CR S18 I'd drop the CR prefix since that's more of a network identifier than a reference number. Most Interstates, US Highways and most state highways include the network identifier. Why should this be dropped for the county roads? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote: On 4/13/11 10:54 AM, Mike N wrote: On 4/13/2011 10:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: network=US:CA:Orange + ref=CR S18 I'd drop the CR prefix since that's more of a network identifier than a reference number. Most Interstates, US Highways and most state highways include the network identifier. Why should this be dropped for the county roads? ways vs. relations. we need the identifier on ways because of the data consumers that expect to render directly. for relations, we should in theory be only including the actual reference number. Isn't that just tagging for the renderer? -- Kristian Zoerhoff kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/13/11 4:18 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote: ways vs. relations. we need the identifier on ways because of the data consumers that expect to render directly. for relations, we should in theory be only including the actual reference number. Isn't that just tagging for the renderer? it is, but we're way too far gone on that path to do something that disruptive without a really well thought out mitigation plan for making such a change. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/13/2011 4:18 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote: ways vs. relations. we need the identifier on ways because of the data consumers that expect to render directly. for relations, we should in theory be only including the actual reference number. Isn't that just tagging for the renderer? Perhaps, but it's not tagging *incorrectly* for the renderer. The latter is the big no-no. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
