On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:45:23 -0700 Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
> Joseph Jon Booker wrote: > > > Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as > > the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name="I 90", and > > network=US:IL, ref=58 would have name="IL 58" in the relations. > > Not really, no. Many Interstate routes have official names that have > nothing to do with their status or route number: See Pacific Highway, > Golden State Freeway, and Baldock Freeway to name a few (and that's > just I-5! The relation for I-5 should not be tagged with that name= any of those then. What about having a relation for I-5 that goes through all of those ways and another route relation, with name="Pacific Highway" (and ref,network as blank), where they coincide? Around here, we have a Skokie Highway which is part street, part cosigned with I 94, and part its own highway, so this covers that case. -- Joseph Booker
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
