On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Apollinaris Schoell <ascho...@gmail.com> wrote: > this is great work, signs could be a bit smaller tough. > > why not stick with the symbol tag? see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging > the symbols tagging should be transparent to the mappers not only to > some internal notation of a renderer. > and tags should be human readable. software can easily to the > translation instead
Probably because the mapper can easily identify the type of road (i.e. Interstate, US Hwy, etc.). I'm not sure that the mapper should be specifying the URL of the sign since it requires extra work to find it and any renderer should be able to pick their own source of sign shields (I know they can simply ignore the suggested one, but this method can put more information into the DB). Cheers, Adam > On 12 Apr 2009, at 7:38 , Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit >> network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit >> network=us_ny # NY State Route >> network=us_ny_county # >> >> That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like >> tagging >> for the renderer, and something that would be easy for the renderer to >> figure out. What about us_i and then have renderers find the right >> shield for the number of digits? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
