+1 given the length of some interstates this is highly recommended.
On 7 Sep 2009, at 12:12 , Richard Welty wrote: > given that there is apparent concensus that Interstate relations be > done > on a state-by-state > basis, perhaps the language on the Interstate_Highways_Relations page > should be updated: > > Avoid relation proliferation, if possible. If a relation already > exists > for the route you are > tagging, you can reuse the existing relation in your area. In > Potlatch, > do a relation search > on the existing relation's number. > > perhaps should become: > > Avoid relation proliferation, if possible. Interstate Highway > relations > should be on a state-by-state > basis, e.g. I-90 in MA, I-90 in NY, I-90 in PA, and so forth. > If a suitable relation already exists for the route you are tagging, > you > can reuse the existing relation > in your area. In Potlatch, do a relation search on the existing > relation's number. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
