That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa...
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>wrote: > Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? > > > ------------------------------ > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 > To: ba...@ursamundi.org > CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > > But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no > 'children', right? > > If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be > the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route > and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is > imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > > I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being > confused with a county level network. > On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the > segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as > "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are > still being used too) > > Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly > stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything > like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage > has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions > for the different styles): > > I-26: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg > I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG > I-74: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg > I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs > Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments > inside of relations: > network=US:I:Future > > However, somebody else suggested this: > network=US:I > modifier=Future > > Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always > change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme > for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. > > -James (rickmastfan67) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.us/ > > _______________________________________________ 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
