On 3/11/14 7:04 PM, Peter Davies wrote: > I thought I would make my proposal stand out a bit more by adding words to > the title. :-O > > There are some weird things, like Nebraska's state law that requires NDOR > to have a state road link to every community of a 100 people or more. I've > changed some "Link 80F" ref tags to "NE 80F Link" and "Spur nnX" tags to > "NE nnX Spur" without having time to do the whole state. > > AZ has its "Loop 101" and "Loop 202" freeways for which I would advocate > refs "AZ Loop 101" and "AZ Loop 202". > > Texas also has many weird qualifiers on minor state routes but as I've > never contracted there for 511 I'm not totally familiar with them. > > On relations, i think we have a clear, agreed upon standard that the network tag indicates the grouping of highways to which a particular route belongs, and the ref tag indicates the identifier within that group.
so you end up with something like network=US:AZ:Loop ref=101 although some might prefer network=US:AZ ref=Loop 101 either one contains enough information in an easily parsed format to allow data consumers to accomplish what they need to do. i lean towards the former tagging approach myself. 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
