Disambiguation. US:FS:Hood and US:FS:Ozark are two different national forest service networks with entirely different numbering schemes. Plus network=CA by itself would be Canada, not California, which is US:CA...
On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 5:07 PM Peter Elderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, recreational routes and networks simply are not that organized, and > jurisdiction or authority doesn't apply to most of them. I guess that is > why the values are more generic. > > I still don't understand why you tag "US" while it's obviously a bunch of > roads in the US. or Interstate when the road clearly crosses state lines. I > think that"s more redundant than tagging "we classify this route as a > regional route", even though it might cross two national borders in a few > places and half the roads are outside our borders, and we don't know the > current operator or provider. > > Peter Elderson > > Op 12 jul. 2020 om 23:41 heeft Mike Thompson <[email protected]> het > volgende geschreven: > > > > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? >> > Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping > practice. Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki) > with network=nrn/rrn/etc. Whether a road network is national, or > otherwise, is evident for two reasons: > 1) All the routes with the same network tag will be spread across some > geographic extent. So, one could see that there are routes all across the > US with "network=US:I" and could conclude that this is a national network. > 2) By the network tag itself, for example, in the "network=US:I" tag, > there is no smaller jurisdiction indicated after US, so it must be a > national network. > > If a hiking route was tagged with network=US:FS (Forest Servies) for > example, one could see that (if that practice was generally followed), that > there the Forest Service operates hiking routes all across the US (and not > anywhere else), and thus that such a network was national in scope. And, > the scope would be evident from the network tag itself, as there is no > smaller jurisdiction following "US" in the network tag. > > In anyevent, my main point is we should be consistent and treat all route > relations the same. If it is desirable to explicitly know the scope, why > not have a "scope" tag, or leave the scope in the network tag, and have a > new tag for "specific_network" (or whatever folks want to call it). > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
