On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net>wrote:
> 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>wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees <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. > > That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
