Same thing that I did with OSM's I 35;I 80 around Des Moines, Iowa,
correcting it to I 80;I 35 a few months ago. The exit numbers and
mileposts confirm that this route has always been seen as I 80 by IADOT and
Iowa State Patrol, since its first stretches were opened in 1958-59.
[mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 2:53 PM
To: Kerry Irons
Cc: Tod Fitch; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple
overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept
Kerry
I think it useful to spin off this topic from the long and still unfinished
debate about directional roles in relations. I hope it can be agreed more
quickly than the cardinal directional roles issue!
The question is how to handle US roadway routes that are double, triple or
even quad-banded,
This would match how people usually talk about things like I-465 around
Indianapolis, ignoring all the other routes that are also routed along it,
but it doesn't work quite so well when there are co-signed routes that
persist for long distances where people refer to the paired name. I think
Eric
Perhaps it would be ok still to code these few exceptions that are known
equally by two route designators as US 1;US 9 in NJ or US 12;US 18 in
WI, but to simplify the vast majority of routes where the secondary banding
is less important? My aim is to announce traffic problems the way the
; Richard Welty; OSM US Talk
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple
overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept
Eric
Perhaps it would be ok still to code these few exceptions that are known
equally by two route designators as US 1;US 9 in NJ or US 12;US
-
From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:45 PM
To: Eric Fischer
Cc: Martijn van Exel; Richard Welty; OSM US Talk
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators
(multiple
overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013, at 12:46 PM, Peter Davies wrote:
The question is how to handle US roadway routes that are double, triple
or
even quad-banded, having multiple route designators. Some OSM mappers
call
this topic route overlaps. I might call it information overload. On
most maps,
On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote:
Kerry
snip
It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary designators
in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one is presented first.
We can easily ignore the less important numbers. But without a way ref
Tod,
I found a common stretch of CA 108 and CA 120 between Oakdale and Yosemite
Junction in Tuolumne County. I'm not sure if that's the double-banded
section you mention.
As Eric Fischer said, there are some ways that carry two approximately
equal routes, and my suggestion was that they would
choice for
shield priority.
Kerry
From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:53 PM
To: Tod Fitch
Cc: Kerry Irons; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators
:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:53 PM
*To:* Tod Fitch
*Cc:* Kerry Irons; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric
Fischer
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators
(multiple overlaps) on ways: the Principal route designator concept
Tod,
I found
I know awhile back I updated the ref tag on the short segment of I-77 that has
I-74 cosigned with it from ref=I 74;I 77 to ref=I 77;I 74 because along
that segment, they are using I-77's mile markers. Plus it helps to know that
I-77 was there long before the two I-74 signs (one NB and one SB)
13 matches
Mail list logo
