On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com <mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com <mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: > I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense but > isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage? No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county roads.I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves its own, separate tag. i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county route involves using the actual county name, e.g. network=US:NY:Albany rather than a more generic CO, CR, CH or what have you, and i find i can't really argue against that. using the generic value means you can't distinguish between CR 1 in Albany County and CR 1 in the adjacent Rensselaer County based on the network and ref tags. richard
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
