On 3/11/14 6:33 PM, Peter Davies wrote: > CR and CH s are troubling. Minnesota has numerous CH 1 s or CR 1 s. So do > most states. So whether we write CR 1, CH 1, or 1 it won't be unique even > in the state, let alone between states. I do not have a unique solution to > propose. Fortunately most regional traffic events happen on state routes > (e.g., CA, US, I ) and most CR events are of local interest only. But I > would request that we use a consistent labeling for CR s, for which I would > propose "CR n" so at least we know it's not a state route. > > I guess I feel strongly about this ... :) > the long term solution on CR/CH is to move to relations.
in the short term, on ways, make sure to add the network tag, e.g. network=US:NY:Washington for Washington County. (some places they use US:NY:CR:Washington which might be better, i don't know). richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
