>
> -James
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 05:15:38 -0600
> From: ba...@ursamundi.org
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes
>
n 2015 05:15:38 -0600
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes
The ref should be what appears on the "keystone" shields. I believe a quick
at-a-glance sanity check wo
relation/3075726
>
> -James
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 04:49:59 -0600
> From: ba...@ursamundi.org
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant
...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes
OK, so three, possibly four, routes that could have US:PA:Turnpike relations.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:45 AM, James Mast wrote:
>> US:PA:Turnpike (possibly only one member?)
OK, so three, possibly four, routes that could have US:PA:Turnpike
relations.
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 4:45 AM, James Mast
wrote:
> >> US:PA:Turnpike (possibly only one member?)
>
> There are 3 routes in that (not counting the mainline PA Turnpike
> relation).
>
> PA Turnpike 43
> PA Turnpike 66
>> US:PA:Turnpike (possibly only one member?)
There are 3 routes in that (not counting the mainline PA Turnpike relation).
PA Turnpike 43
PA Turnpike 66
PA Turnpike 576 (Future I-576 maybe when it connects to I-79 in 2019, or maybe
in the distant future when it connects to PA Turnpike 43)
There
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> On 2015-01-19 00:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> Are they actually separate networks, though? Just because there's more
>> digits doesn't a different network make.
>>
>
> What distinguishes the various networks that a given agency maintains? For
On 2015-01-19 01:30, Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 2015-01-19 00:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
Are they actually separate networks, though? Just because there's more
digits doesn't a different network make.
What distinguishes the various networks that a given agency maintains?
For our purposes, I think we'
On 2015-01-19 00:50, Paul Johnson wrote:
Are they actually separate networks, though? Just because there's more
digits doesn't a different network make.
What distinguishes the various networks that a given agency maintains?
For our purposes, I think we're most interested in:
1. Significant
hem being joined.
>
> -James
>
> [1] - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_380>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_380
> [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_99
> [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_283
>
> > To
Are they actually separate networks, though? Just because there's more
digits doesn't a different network make.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> On 2015-01-16 07:52, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'm very much in favor of PA instead of SR for disambiguation purposes.
>>
>
> With
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_380
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_99
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Route_283
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> From: m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:06:14 -0800
> Subject
On 2015-01-16 07:52, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm very much in favor of PA instead of SR for disambiguation purposes.
With James' proposal to change `ref` to `ref:penndot` (or something even
more explicit like `ref:penndot:quadrant`), there's no need for
disambiguation. A prefix of "PA" isn't goin
; and
> secondary 'SR' tags for it's two different shields, except PA doesn't have
> the problem with multiple types of shields.
>
> -James
>
> ----------
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:52:34 -0600
> From: ba...@ursamundi.org
> To: rick
I'm very much in favor of PA instead of SR for disambiguation purposes.
+1 on deprecating "SR" (for "state route") where appropriate: using
a 2-letter state code is much preferred.
However, in this specific case, James Mast makes a convincing
argument that SR remain. There are other places
Route_Relations#Four_digit_routes
From: br...@7thposition.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:08:42 -0500
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant routes
I’m from PA and I know exactly the little signs that you’re talking about. I
agree
tags for it's two different shields, except PA doesn't have the
problem with multiple types of shields.
-James
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 09:52:34 -0600
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Pennsylvania's quadrant
I'm very much in favor of PA instead of SR for disambiguation purposes.
On Jan 16, 2015 2:15 AM, "James Mast" wrote:
> I have happened to notice (mostly in Eastern Pennsylvania) that some users
> have added these routes from the old 'name_*' tags and putting them in the
> 'ref=*' tags as "ref=SR1
I’m from PA and I know exactly the little signs that you’re talking about. I
agree with everything you suggested about moving the SR ref to a different
key. It’s not significant enough to be a “ref”.
I’m not sure who “owns” the Pennsylvania wiki page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/P
On 2015-01-16 00:14, James Mast wrote:
So, I've come up with a possible replacement tag of 'ref:penndot=SR
' [3] for these routes that are only signed with the white mileage
signs. With this tag, it still allows the quadrant routes to be added,
but not to take up the normal 'ref' tag when it
I have happened to notice (mostly in Eastern Pennsylvania) that some users have
added these routes from the old 'name_*' tags and putting them in the 'ref=*'
tags as "ref=SR1234". The problem here is that Pennsylvania doesn't post these
routes (except in little white mileage signs [1][2] or/and
21 matches
Mail list logo
