* Nathan Edgars II <nerou...@gmail.com> [2012-04-02 09:23 -0400]: > On 4/2/2012 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > >I'm not an expert on every state, so I'm particularly interested in > >whether things look good to the natives of each state and, if not, what > >could make them look better. > > Florida has special toll shields. These are not represented by > relations since, for example, SR 528 is partly toll-shielded and > partly normal shielded.
There's a similar problem in Tennessee, where a route may go back and forth between primary and secondary signage depending on the state's classification of the road at that point. For the moment, we opted to ignore the Tennessee problem as much as possible and use the primary sign for a route if any part of that route is signed as a primary. For things like Florida's toll roads, we currently treat that as a separate network, so a route relation tagged as network=US:FL:Toll, ref=528 would get the toll shield. I can see the argument that the toll portions are still considered part of SR 528 so they should still be part of the SR 528 route relation, but there is something distinct about them, since they are signed differently. Making a separate relation for the toll portions and putting the tolled ways into both relations might not be a bad solution. That's definitely one that I, as a data consumer, could handle. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong. -- Norm Schryer ---- --- -- _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
