Ngày 3/11/09 8:48 PM, Paul Johnson vie^'t:
Spencer Riddile wrote:
Chris,
What would the advantage/disadvantage be of using a different network
name ("usbrs" vs. "ncn") for U.S. bike routes. The author of open cycle
map would have to adjust their symbolization if we started using
"usbrs". Is it good to try to keep some international standard even
though trail and route systems may be different in various ways.
Plus there are areas in the US that are already using the ncn/rcn/lcn
convention so cyclemap renders things properly. This breaks down pretty
nicely for cycleways that front US and Interstates as well as the 2
designated NCNs in the US (as ncn), state owned routes as rcn and city
and county maintained routes as LCN (such as the 40 Mile Loop and
Portland/Salem/Eugene's bicycle boulevards and city greenways).
Pennsylvania seems to be tagging trails as NCNs pretty extensively on
what probably aren't existing or proposed U.S. Bike Routes. [1] I'm
guessing that's to get the trails to appear more prominently at lower
zoom levels.
[1] For example, BikePA Route S:
http://www.opencyclemap.org/?zoom=11&lat=40.18381&lon=-80.23126&layers=B000
--
Minh Nguyen<[email protected]>
AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: [email protected]; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
