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
On 4/11/11 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Millsnat...@nwacg.net [2011-04-10 19:22 -0500]:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
How about simply network=US:CA:CR?
That's all well and good for California, but what about states like
Arkansas (and Florida, IIRC) where
On 4/11/2011 2:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
for the California situation, i think there's an obvious answer, as
the tertiary network appears to be divided into lettered groups:
network=US:CA:A
That's not the network any more than US:I:95 is the network for I-195
and other spurs of I-95.
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:47:02 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
In my opinion, there's too much variation in how each state organizes
and
numbers its state-and-lower roads to make a uniform, US-wide rule. I
would say that state highways should be network=US:ST (where ST is
the
two-letter state
* Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net [2011-04-11 13:08 -0500]:
Without some sort of general agreement between areas (as much as is
possible, anyway) it will be very difficult for renderers to do
useful things with county road relations. It would be nice if it
could be boiled down to a few different
On 4/11/2011 2:26 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
I've also thought that it would be nice to have a tag like admin_level
(perhaps the admin_level tag itself) on relations to indicate which level
of government is responsible for maintaining the road.
No good. Many local governments maintain portions of
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2011-04-11 14:31 -0400]:
On 4/11/2011 2:26 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
I've also thought that it would be nice to have a tag like admin_level
(perhaps the admin_level tag itself) on relations to indicate which level
of government is responsible for maintaining
On 4/10/2011 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too
cluttered in Mapnik.
Don't tag for your preference for what the renderer should do...
___
Talk-us mailing list
Point taken. I'm still not clear on the correct syntax for the relation,
though.
--
Kristian M Zoerhoff
On Apr 10, 2011 4:07 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/2011 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too
On 4/10/2011 5:19 PM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote:
Point taken. I'm still not clear on the correct syntax for the relation,
though.
It shouldn't really matter as long as it's consistent, now that the new
Java XAPI can download relations without their elements. For example,
On 4/10/11 5:00 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
Would it be:
Big Timber Road. network=us_il_kane
this is a reasonable network tag for the ways.
I don't want ref tags on these, as the shields will quickly get too
cluttered in Mapnik.
that must be a lot of county roads, i haven't perceived a
Ah, I didn't realize the rules varied by highway class. These are all
tertiary, so this should work out OK.
--
Kristian M Zoerhoff
On Apr 10, 2011 5:41 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/10/2011 6:34 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
that must be a lot of county roads, i haven't
On 4/10/2011 6:34 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
Would it be:
Big Timber Road. network=us_il_kane
this is a reasonable network tag for the ways.
I would expect the Interstate and US relation network tagging
convention to be extended:
Interstate - network=US:I
US - network=US:US
State
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:
network=US:CA:Orange
+ ref=CR S18
--
Alan Mintz
On 4/10/2011 7:25 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:
network=US:CA:Orange
+
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 17:02 -0700, Alan Mintz wrote:
At 2011-04-10 16:28, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/10/2011 7:25 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
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 20:14:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
It's almost like they defined super-groups of counties identified by
those letters. I'll have to crunch that table to see if that's the
case
so we could have network=US:CA:S + ref=CR S18. Maybe add an
is_in:county tag to the
Michigan has a similar system, but not very many counties have opted into
the system.
Illinois' system is unique per county, so US:IL:Kane is what I'll be going
with. I even spotted a new route tonight while heading to a hardware store,
so I might make that the guinea pig.
--
Kristian M Zoerhoff
23 matches
Mail list logo
