> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:28:12 -0400 > From: phi...@pobox.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags > > * James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]: > > > the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to > > be a "Future" Interstate and it is posted as such with "FUTURE" tabs > > above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word > > "Interstate" in the shields itself. > > Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these > (US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations? If > there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my > rendering for them. > >
Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a "Future I-26" shield: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg And here's one for I-74 in NC along the Rockingham US-74 Bypass when I was on it a few years ago: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg And for quick reference, here's a I-840 from StreetView: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs And a Future I-73/I-840 combo from StreetView: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG It seems that only NC seems to do it this way. Don't know of any other states that post "Future" Interstates except for those "Future I-xx Corridor" signs" (NC does that too on highways that aren't going to be part of a future Interstate). -James
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
