I didn't mean put network=* on the way; I meant the route relation. I
presume that's already how it differentiates Interstates, US routes, state
routes, etc. I don't know how else it could be done from the relation.
I certainly agree now with adding PATP as a ref on the ways for the reasons
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:34 PM Albert Pundt wrote:
> On an unrelated note, thanks for linking that renderer. I used it to find
> and fix some holes in PA's US 119 relation where it defaulted to using a
> plain text rectangle since only the ref tag was present.
>
It may be a while before your
This would not involve adding ref=PATP to the PA Turnpike route relation.
However, thinking about it now, I think it should be added to the ways for
the sake of the Carto renderer. (I know, I know, tagging for the renderer,
but isn't Carto's use of ref tags for route markers the only reason the
Sounds good to me - I think the PATP abbreviation is easy to understand.
Thanks, Bryan
Sent from my iPhone
> On Nov 10, 2018, at 7:50 PM, Albert Pundt wrote:
>
> Does anyone object to the use of "PATP" as the ref equivalent for the PA
> Turnpike? Particularly for destination:ref tags, as
Does anyone object to the use of "PATP" as the ref equivalent for the PA
Turnpike? Particularly for destination:ref tags, as the Turnpike keystone
shield is used on most guide signs for ramps onto the Turnpike. However,
since it's not used as a reassurance marker*, I don't think it should be
added
5 matches
Mail list logo
