There is one other. I mentioned it in my e-mail from yesterday (07-09-13). That is I-295 in Fayetteville. http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html And to be honest, I thought some people wanted the ":Future" part dropped out and just put in the "modifier" area. -James > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:40:58 -0400 > From: phi...@pobox.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > * James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> [2013-07-09 01:40 -0400]: > > So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with > > tagging these "Future" Interstates? > > Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: > > network=US:I:Future > ref=<number> > modifier=Future > > and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd > recommend tagging as above. > > Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and > 840. Are there any others? > > _______________________________________________ > 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
