On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Craig Hinners <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > > Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin > Highway > > > 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have ref=10;66;39. > Not > > > very useful for determining which is which. > > This is why I keep arguing for using *non-ambiguous tag names*: the > "what" should go in the tag name, and the "which" should go in the tag > value. So, instead of the current situation where we have half a > bazillion ways with a "network" tag name, you'd have: > > network:country[US]:unitedStatesHighway = 10 > network:country[US]:state[WI] = 66 > network:country[US]:interstate = 39 Why are we shoving so much information into one tag? This level of detail should be broken into separate tags so that a renderer or other data user doesn't have to write a text parser for the network tag. We need two sets of information: the detailed, specific information (which state a route is in, the route number or code) and the general information (what kind of route it is (e.g. interstate, state, county road)). These two sets of information should be in different tags, not shoved together into one big long tag.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
