On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net>wrote:
> > there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what > the wiki calls for. from > > Agreed. One of the reasons I started this discussion was to make sure that what the wiki calls for is still "right". As far as rendering the shields go, I think we should stick with the established tagging scheme and let whoever writes the parser worry about stripping the network=US: out of US:* . > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations > > we see: > > network=US:I, US:I:BUSINESS, US:I:DOWNTOWN, US:I:FUTURE Required. > Business, downtown and future routes have their own signage > > and > > ref=* Required. ex. 90 > > and many people have been busy building relations to fit this > specification. > > from > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations > > network=US:US > ref=* ex. 20 > > and so forth. > > > Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation with rolls per state question. The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like only interstates I-24, I-26, I-84 were merged from 2-relations into 1-relation with roles. The rest of the system still has the relation numbers listed in the WIKI. From what I can see, it looks like there's no clear winner between the two systems, although quite a few Interstates are still missing supers. I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that need to be split into dual carriageways. Chris Hunter DiverCTH
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
