At 2011-08-20 09:46, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that
because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for
all routes makes the most sense.
My understanding
At 2011-08-20 12:34, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/20/2011 3:29 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Because some states officially designate the road as SR-26, for
instance.
I'd say most states do. That doesn't mean, though, we have to copy it. The
SR is assumed.
Not to mention states like Texas,
Op 21 aug. 2011, om 15:21 heeft Alan Mintz het volgende geschreven:
My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
1) network=US:CA + ref=60
2) ref=CA 60
Reminds me: there are two ref-tags. One on the relation, one on the way. The
suggestion of Alan would fit
At 2011-08-21 06:56, Henk Hoff wrote:
A suggestion:
- ... When the road is part of multiple routes, the main route is used.
That could be:
** a higher classification prevails (US over state)
** the continuous route prevails (if route x uses part of route y to get
to it's next section, then
On 8/21/2011 1:57 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea.
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is the way we do things.
If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to
armchair-map (most countries don't have route
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
1) network=US:CA + ref=60
2) ref=CA 60
SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside.
At 2011-08-21 10:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
1) network=US:CA + ref=60
2) ref=CA 60
SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The network
tag won't work here,
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object.
ref=CA 60;I 215
or
network=US:CA;US:I
ref=60;215
Difficult to maintain for mappers and harder to consume for use. Use
simply tagged relations
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote:
Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object.
ref=CA 60;I 215
or
network=US:CA;US:I
ref=60;215
Difficult to
At 2011-08-21 10:57, Henk Hoff wrote:
For every rule we can find exceptions.
In this case, I will guess the exceptions (shared routes) are less than 5%
of the ways.
The basic idea behind the decision-tree was: use the most important / most
logical route for the way-ref tag.
If you know
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the
ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design,
it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we
need the duplication and the problems
For starters, this is a more constructive response than the go away. Thanks.
There is a ref-tag on a way and a ref-tag in the relation. Although they are
both called ref, that does not directly mean they're the same.
My suggestion: use the way-ref for the most important one. If you want to know
I think one route tag as a primary would work in NH as the DOT uses primary
routes on mile markers for the freeways. Relations can handle showing the other
routes.
Andrew
Andrew S. Sawyer
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com
Date:
On Aug 21, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to armchair-map
That's a little harsh.
Where do you live now? New Jersey? Florida? Portland? L.A.? I can't keep
track, but you sure get around to read a lot of signage.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the
ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design,
it's also true that many consumers
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't get around as much as
Sent again; sorry to people who receive multiple copies due to moderation.
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't get around as much as you,
17 matches
Mail list logo
