Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/2011 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too cluttered in Mapnik. Don't tag for your preference for what the renderer should do... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
Point taken. I'm still not clear on the correct syntax for the relation, though. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Apr 10, 2011 4:07 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote: > On 4/10/2011 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: >> I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too >> cluttered in Mapnik. >> > Don't tag for your preference for what the renderer should do... > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/2011 5:19 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote: Point taken. I'm still not clear on the correct syntax for the relation, though. It shouldn't really matter as long as it's consistent, now that the new Java XAPI can download relations without their elements. For example, http://jxapi.openstreetmap.org/xapi/api/0.6/relation[network=US:IL] will give you all the Illinois state route relations. Changing syntax is simply a matter of selecting all, making the change, and uploading. Personally I'd use US:IL:Kane or US:IL:CR with is_in:county=Kane, IL (or should this be just Kane?). Others will probably prefer different values. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/11 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
Would it be:
Big Timber Road. network=us_il_kane
this is a reasonable network tag for the ways.
I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too
cluttered in Mapnik.
that must be a lot of county roads, i haven't perceived a clutter problem
in Rensselaer County, and i have used ref tags ("CR 9" for county route
9) everywhere. note that if you zoom out, mapnik is smart enough to
disappear the county route ref tags past a certain point.
richard
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/2011 6:34 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
that must be a lot of county roads, i haven't perceived a clutter problem
in Rensselaer County, and i have used ref tags ("CR 9" for county route
9) everywhere. note that if you zoom out, mapnik is smart enough to
disappear the county route ref tags past a certain point.
Disappear the tertiary ref tags, that is (at zoom 12). Secondaries
disappear at zoom 11, primaries and trunks at 10, and all refs are gone
at zoom 9. Of course, at any zoom level, it doesn't try to put shields
in where they won't fit.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
Ah, I didn't realize the rules varied by highway class. These are all
tertiary, so this should work out OK.
--
Kristian M Zoerhoff
On Apr 10, 2011 5:41 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote:
> On 4/10/2011 6:34 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> that must be a lot of county roads, i haven't perceived a clutter problem
>> in Rensselaer County, and i have used ref tags ("CR 9" for county route
>> 9) everywhere. note that if you zoom out, mapnik is smart enough to
>> disappear the county route ref tags past a certain point.
>
> Disappear the tertiary ref tags, that is (at zoom 12). Secondaries
> disappear at zoom 11, primaries and trunks at 10, and all refs are gone
> at zoom 9. Of course, at any zoom level, it doesn't try to put shields
> in where they won't fit.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/2011 6:34 PM, Richard Welty wrote: Would it be: Big Timber Road. network=us_il_kane this is a reasonable network tag for the ways. I would expect the Interstate and US relation network tagging convention to be extended: Interstate - network=US:I US - network=US:US State - network=US:ST County - network=US:ST:county ... according to the proposal at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_with_relations_.28proposal.29 , which seems reasonable. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/2011 7:25 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" How does this work with routes that cross county lines? California has a statewide numbering system, with the letter roughly representing the part of the state. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
At 2011-04-10 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/10/2011 7:25 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" How does this work with routes that cross county lines? California has a statewide numbering system, with the letter roughly representing the part of the state. Yup - that is problematic. I think, when I marked Orange County S18 last year, I didn't see any other county road tagging to go by. http://www.cahighways.org/county.html shows that there are some occurrences of this. I apparently expected to break them at the county lines, I guess, so as to agree with signage. That is, Orange County S99 would be a different route than San Diego S99. network="US:CA:Orange;US:CA:San Diego" on the relation seems workable. It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. I realize this is kind of scattered. On my way out the door. -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/2011 8:02 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2011-04-10 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How does this work with routes that cross county lines? California has a statewide numbering system, with the letter roughly representing the part of the state. Yup - that is problematic. I think, when I marked Orange County S18 last year, I didn't see any other county road tagging to go by. http://www.cahighways.org/county.html shows that there are some occurrences of this. I apparently expected to break them at the county lines, I guess, so as to agree with signage. That is, Orange County S99 would be a different route than San Diego S99. network="US:CA:Orange;US:CA:San Diego" on the relation seems workable. They're really not different routes. They could be split at county lines, like U.S. Highways are split at state lines, but the network should be the same. It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. How about simply network=US:CA:CR? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 17:02 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: > At 2011-04-10 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >On 4/10/2011 7:25 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" > > > >How does this work with routes that cross county lines? California has a > >statewide numbering system, with the letter roughly representing the part > >of the state. > > Yup - that is problematic. I think, when I marked Orange County S18 last > year, I didn't see any other county road tagging to go by. > http://www.cahighways.org/county.html shows that there are some occurrences > of this. I apparently expected to break them at the county lines, I guess, > so as to agree with signage. That is, Orange County S99 would be a > different route than San Diego S99. network="US:CA:Orange;US:CA:San Diego" > on the relation seems workable. > > It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by > those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so > we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag > to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. > > I realize this is kind of scattered. On my way out the door. > > > -- > Alan Mintz > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us Hi, That's correct that the county routes are grouped into "zones" which don't necessarily coincide with counties. There are nine zones (A, B, D, E, G, J, N, R, S). There are some county route relations here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/State_Highway_Relations#County_Highways though it's not set in stone obviously. I guess either US:CA:[zone] or US:CA:CR as suggested would work. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. How about simply network=US:CA:CR? That's all well and good for California, but what about states like Arkansas (and Florida, IIRC) where the county road system is not unique to the entire state. I suppose in that case, US:AR:[County] would be the appropriate network value? US:AR:CR would be meaningless. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/10/11 8:22 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. How about simply network=US:CA:CR? That's all well and good for California, but what about states like Arkansas (and Florida, IIRC) where the county road system is not unique to the entire state. I suppose in that case, US:AR:[County] would be the appropriate network value? US:AR:CR would be meaningless. most of the US, i think, should be using such a system. there is a certain amount of "US:AR:CR" about, which needs to be fixed in cases where it should be the county name instead of CR. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
Michigan has a similar system, but not very many counties have opted into the system. Illinois' system is unique per county, so US:IL:Kane is what I'll be going with. I even spotted a new route tonight while heading to a hardware store, so I might make that the guinea pig. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff On Apr 10, 2011 7:23 PM, "Andrew Cleveland" wrote: > On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 17:02 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote: >> At 2011-04-10 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> >On 4/10/2011 7:25 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" >> > >> >How does this work with routes that cross county lines? California has a >> >statewide numbering system, with the letter roughly representing the part >> >of the state. >> >> Yup - that is problematic. I think, when I marked Orange County S18 last >> year, I didn't see any other county road tagging to go by. >> http://www.cahighways.org/county.html shows that there are some occurrences >> of this. I apparently expected to break them at the county lines, I guess, >> so as to agree with signage. That is, Orange County S99 would be a >> different route than San Diego S99. network="US:CA:Orange;US:CA:San Diego" >> on the relation seems workable. >> >> It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by >> those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the case so >> we could have network=US:CA:S + ref="CR S18". Maybe add an is_in:county tag >> to the individual segments to avoid losing that important info. >> >> I realize this is kind of scattered. On my way out the door. >> >> >> -- >> Alan Mintz >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > Hi, > > That's correct that the county routes are grouped into "zones" which > don't necessarily coincide with counties. There are nine zones (A, B, D, > E, G, J, N, R, S). > > There are some county route relations here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/California/State_Highway_Relations#County_Highways > though it's not set in stone obviously. I guess either US:CA:[zone] or > US:CA:CR as suggested would work. > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
* Nathan Mills [2011-04-10 19:22 -0500]: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > >How about simply network=US:CA:CR? > > That's all well and good for California, but what about states like > Arkansas (and Florida, IIRC) where the county road system is not > unique to the entire state. In my opinion, there's too much variation in how each state organizes and numbers its state-and-lower roads to make a uniform, US-wide rule. I would say that state highways should be network=US:ST (where "ST" is the two-letter state abbreviation), and anything further (county roads, Pennsylvania's primary and secondary state roads, California's multi-county roads, etc.) would be US:ST:, where the "" is up to the mappers in that state (and, hopefully, documented on that state's page on the wiki). -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Shadowfax. Now there's a horse. I bet he gets all the mares. -- Ultra Violate, in a tribe.net post --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/11/11 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: * Nathan Mills [2011-04-10 19:22 -0500]: On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: How about simply network=US:CA:CR? That's all well and good for California, but what about states like Arkansas (and Florida, IIRC) where the county road system is not unique to the entire state. In my opinion, there's too much variation in how each state organizes and numbers its state-and-lower roads to make a uniform, US-wide rule. I would say that state highways should be network=US:ST (where "ST" is the two-letter state abbreviation), and anything further (county roads, Pennsylvania's primary and secondary state roads, California's multi-county roads, etc.) would be US:ST:, where the "" is up to the mappers in that state (and, hopefully, documented on that state's page on the wiki). yes. for the California situation, i think there's an obvious answer, as the tertiary network appears to be divided into lettered groups: network=US:CA:A ... don't attempt to represent the counties, the state has already defined the "networks" for the tertiaries. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/11/2011 2:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: for the California situation, i think there's an obvious answer, as the tertiary network appears to be divided into lettered groups: network=US:CA:A That's not the network any more than US:I:95 is the network for I-195 and other spurs of I-95. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:47:02 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote: In my opinion, there's too much variation in how each state organizes and numbers its state-and-lower roads to make a uniform, US-wide rule. I would say that state highways should be network=US:ST (where "ST" is the two-letter state abbreviation), and anything further (county roads, Pennsylvania's primary and secondary state roads, California's multi-county roads, etc.) would be US:ST:, where the "" is up to the mappers in that state (and, hopefully, documented on that state's page on the wiki). Without some sort of general agreement between areas (as much as is possible, anyway) it will be very difficult for renderers to do useful things with county road relations. It would be nice if it could be boiled down to a few different "classes" of tag for various states. California and any states with similar schemes might use US:ST:[A-Z]. States with single-county road networks would all use US:ST:County. That way we can at least say that all states that number county roads in the same way should be tagged in the same way. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
* Nathan Mills [2011-04-11 13:08 -0500]: > Without some sort of general agreement between areas (as much as is > possible, anyway) it will be very difficult for renderers to do > useful things with county road relations. It would be nice if it > could be boiled down to a few different "classes" of tag for various > states. I've also thought that it would be nice to have a tag like admin_level (perhaps the admin_level tag itself) on relations to indicate which level of government is responsible for maintaining the road. With that, data consumers could have a generic tag to get a more universal idea of what sort of road it is, but could still check the network tag for the specifics. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- There are two rules for success in life: Rule 1: Don't tell people everything you know. --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
On 4/11/2011 2:26 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: I've also thought that it would be nice to have a tag like admin_level (perhaps the admin_level tag itself) on relations to indicate which level of government is responsible for maintaining the road. No good. Many local governments maintain portions of state- and nationally-numbered highways (both of which are normally state-maintained). In fact Baltimore City maintains its portion of Interstate 83 (and all other signed routes, except for I-95, I-395, and I-895, which the Maryland Transportation Authority maintains). The only way to handle this is with operator=* tags on each individual way. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] County road network relations
* Nathan Edgars II [2011-04-11 14:31 -0400]: > On 4/11/2011 2:26 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > >I've also thought that it would be nice to have a tag like admin_level > >(perhaps the admin_level tag itself) on relations to indicate which level > >of government is responsible for maintaining the road. > > No good. Many local governments maintain portions of state- and > nationally-numbered highways (both of which are normally > state-maintained). Okay, so maintained was the wrong wording. The concept I'm try to express is the general level of the network in question. The interstates and US highways are national networks and would be admin_level (or whatever the tag name) 2. State networks would be admin_level 4, and so on. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- "There's no problem that cannot be solved by chocolate." "I think I'm gonna barf." "Except that." -- Buffy and Willow (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, "Fear, Itself") --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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 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. richard ___ 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
[Talk-us] County road network relations (was: REF tags for State Highways on ways)
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 10:42:43AM -0400, Richard Weait wrote: > > ref=number portion only > network=countrycode_statecode_[location details as > required]networkcode_variant > > Interstate 95. ref=95; network=us_i > US 66 historic. ref=66; network=us_us_historic > York Regional Road 8. ref=8; network=ca_on_york What's the consensus for county roads in the US? Right now, my home county (Kane, IL) has a very well mapped and signed county road network, but the data is buried in the name_1 tag in OSM, thanks to TIGER. I've planned to move these to relations, but I haven't seen any other county-level networks, so I'd like to get the syntax right before I dive in. Would it be: Big Timber Road. network=us_il_kane I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too cluttered in Mapnik. -- 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 (was: REF tags for State Highways on ways)
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" -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
