Joseph Jon Booker wrote: > 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?
Why make this more complicated than it has to be? Leave the names on the underlying way, not the relations; leave the refs on the relations, not the underlying ways. Then it's a matter of fixing mapnik and t...@h to do the right thing, since relations are set up better to handle things like route symbols. I'm not logged in on the wiki right now to fix this on the relations list page, but we should probably recommend including a URL to a freely reproducible SVG of the route marker so someone has the motivation to fix rendering of numbered highways to use refs on relations in addition to (or better yet: instead of) underlying ways, they can render something other than the fugly ref symbols currently used, and instead use the same symbol used along the actual route. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
