Hm. Paul noted something similar. It does not sound like there is a clear consensus about how networks should be tagged then. Perhaps more people can weigh in and argue for the one or the other notation.
At least the tagging is consistent now, and would be easy to change in bulk if the outcome is that underscore notation is preferred. The last thing I would want to do is to impose a convention. The 'colon notation' is in use in the U.S. and it made a lot of sense there. For what it's worth, it is used by Scout to interpret numbered routes. I thought OSMAND supported it too in the same notation, but I am not certain. Martijn Martijn van Exel http://mvexel.github.io/ On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Stewart C. Russell <scr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2016-10-28 10:45 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > It's not documented that way anywhere that I could find. The colon > > notation is. Based on the other comments and the documented standards we > > started editing based on the spreadsheet. > > Well, it was here: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes > > road ca_transcanada Canadian Trans-Canada highways > road ca_on_primary Ontario primary highways > > so now the docs are out of whack with reality. > > The colon notation does not seem to be universally accepted. It's not > widely used in the UK or Germany, as far as I can see. The only road > networks I can see in the UK are either scenic routes, with no obvious > hierarchy, or E routes, which if the current national madness prevails, > will have to disappear in the next couple of years for other reasons … > > Stewart > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
