Ian Dees <ian.d...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: > > On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > 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. > > For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work. And as renderers > can only handle ways for now… > > This is a data project, not a renderer project. If the renderers aren't doing > the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing.
+1 Continuing to use ref= tags at all when we have relations that represent a much cleaner way to tag roads is a terrible case of tagging for the renderer. I think it's premature to remove ref tags, but I don't see any point in adding them to new ways, rather than just creating a relation. If the relations keep getting broken, we ought to fix the tools people are using so it isn't as easy to break them. -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us