> and the route numbers on them don't always match the route numbers on the larger road signs. Perhaps I misunderstand what is being said, but I would think this would be an argument *for* tagging the mile marker. Suppose someone wanted to report an event (accident, etc). They might say, "it happened right by RT123 Mile Marker 13" If that mile marker isn't actually on RT123 one would have a difficult time finding that location in OSM based solely on automatic generation of mile markers (since the ways in OSM are presumably tagged with the information from the larger road signs).
Mike On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net>wrote: > On 7/22/13 9:24 PM, Thomas Colson wrote: > >> This draws me back to my original E911 discussion: Many calls we get start >> with "I just passed MM 9..". Thus MMs have value. And yes, each DOT has >> >> their own MM "scheme". Maddening to follow, even more maddening when >> numerous mappers have a different "interpretation" . I propose signed or >> posted MM's only. Perhaps some clarification on the Wiki.. >> >> >> > very careful clarification. > > we probably don't want to record the reference markers on primary and > secondary roads in NYS, they're at 1/10 mile intervals, and the route > numbers on them don't always match the route numbers on the larger > road signs. being able to tag information on the way or relation about > how they are generated might be interesting for emergency response > applications. > > richard > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
