John Smith-129 wrote: > > --- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM <[email protected]> wrote: >> A few questions: >> 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for this to work, >> but >> :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for state specific >> sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need state). > > The states vary on different shields, not just state routes. > But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield design), why specify state? I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, but I suggest we mention drop the state for know national shields.
John Smith-129 wrote: > >> 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there doesn't seem >> to >> be any problem with having just one relation, combining the tags. I think >> this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good thing). > > I haven't started work on state based highways, been working on highway 1 > mostly, and it changes names a fair bit, but I still think 2 relations > would be better than lumping it together and for consistency with other > highways. > I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are for eg. C123 and called TownA-TownB Road. It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the separate ref/name relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got ideas/opinions? John Smith-129 wrote: > > [[SNIP]] > Exactly, and bridges, and not naming ways reduces the chance of error, and > the ease to fix up errors, and reduces a lot of redundancy because the > same name doesn't have to be added to 100s of ways. > Sweet, that was my reasoning as well. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this....-tp24970890p25002516.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
