Then what how how NC is *now* signing the "Future" Interstates? http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg10.html & http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg4.html#seg5 (search for "Photo of only I-73 sign along segment after its opening in December") Those show the "Future" text in big bold text, but yes, they do have the "Interstate" text in them. Maybe have the word "FUTURE" put about the Interstate shield like MapQuest does on their normal maps? http://www.mapquest.com/?version=1.0&hk=9-iIKqGNMU You can see the text above "576" and I-376 Business. This might work as a possible compromise and could work with also bannered US/State highways. -- James > Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 22:21:41 -0400 > From: nerou...@gmail.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps > > On 6/4/2011 9:46 PM, James Mast wrote: > > Also, are you going to try to add proper "Future" Interstate shields? > > Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might > > give people a proper reason to tag these "posted" Future Interstate > > correctly instead of without the "Future" tag. I've noticed a lot of > > I-73/I-74 that is posted as Future in the field tagged as normal > > Interstates would shouldn't be the case...... > > Since the only difference is that the word INTERSTATE is replaced by > FUTURE, I don't see how we could show the difference. See the photos on > http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg7.html - in the first one it's almost > impossible to tell that it's future. I'm also not sure that there's any > benefit in distinguishing. > > Note: this is different from the occasional 'future corridor' signs like > in http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg14.html - those should be marked > with fut_ref=*. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
