On 04/10/2011 06:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-04-10 14:00, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
What's the consensus for county roads in the US?
I don't know what the consensus is.
County roads in California are of the form [A-Z][0-9][0-9]. I tag Orange
County route S18 as:
On 4/13/11 10:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On 04/10/2011 06:25 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-04-10 14:00, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
What's the consensus for county roads in the US?
I don't know what the consensus is.
County roads in California are of the form [A-Z][0-9][0-9]. I tag Orange
On 4/13/2011 10:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
network=US:CA:Orange
+ ref=CR S18
I'd drop the CR prefix since that's more of a network identifier than a
reference number.
Most Interstates, US Highways and most state highways include the
network identifier. Why should this be dropped for
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/13/11 10:54 AM, Mike N wrote:
On 4/13/2011 10:44 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
network=US:CA:Orange
+ ref=CR S18
I'd drop the CR prefix since that's more of a network identifier than a
reference number.
Most
On 4/13/11 4:18 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
ways vs. relations. we need the identifier on ways because of the
data consumers
that expect to render directly. for relations, we should in theory
be only including
the actual
On 4/13/2011 4:18 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:51AM -0400, Richard Welty wrote:
ways vs. relations. we need the identifier on ways because of the
data consumers
that expect to render directly. for relations, we should in theory
be only including
the actual
6 matches
Mail list logo
