On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
>> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
>> option of those above.
>
> Why?
Why add a tag to further describe an arcane, minor detail, in a small
portion of the world,
* Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
> option of those above.
Why?
> increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt
> follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the
> least surpri
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes
> (commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's
> customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or
> should special routes fit into th
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-03-11 22:30 -0400]:
> It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise
> there's inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1 Alternate
> and one signed as US 1A (with the suffix in the shield). In each
> case I'll also use the modifier tag (modifier=A
It's obvious to me that the "banner" is not part of the network. US 1
Alternate is part of the U.S. Highway system (US:US), not some mythical
"U.S. Highway Alternate" system.
It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise there's
inconsistency between an alternate signed as U
I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes
(commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's
customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or
should special routes fit into that?
I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of t
