Multiple is_in=* tags. I think this is the consensus for the rest of the world (at least I've seen it on a few other geometries around the world).
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Leroy E Leonard <[email protected]>wrote: > Are we talking a single "is_in" tag, which will bring back the string > parsing problem, or multiple tags like "is_in:state" and "is_in:county"? > > -- Lee > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I also agree with Phil. The operative tag is the "network" tag. Which >> should refer to either country, state, county as found in the "is_in" >> tags, without having to have a "new" tag. I think this is the way to >> go. >> >> Andrew >> >> On 10/25/2010, Phil! Gold <[email protected]> wrote: >> > * Zeke Farwell <[email protected]> [2010-10-25 09:43 -0400]: >> >> For those who do want to render different shields for each state and/or >> >> county routes why not use sub tags as we commonly do for many other >> >> osm features >> > >> > Ian has suggested the established is_in= tag for this purpose, and Alex >> > Mauer has suggested a relation that contains all the routes for a (state >> > or lower) network. >> > >> > Personally, of those two, I think I prefer is_in=. >> > >> >> For Michigan route 12: >> >> ref=12 >> >> network=state >> >> state=michigan >> > >> > Keep in mind that any tagging we do needs to be compatible with global >> > usage, and network= is already in use. I'd suggest something along the >> > lines of "US:State" and "US:County" to fit in with "US:I" and "US:US". >> > (And also to continue keeping our own namespace for values.) >> > >> > -- >> > ...computer contrarian of the first order... / >> http://aperiodic.net/phil/ >> > PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 >> > --- -- >> > "Quick, you must come with me," she said. You're in great danger!" >> > "Why?" >> > "Because I will kill you if you don't." >> > -- _Sourcery_, Terry Pratchett >> > ---- --- -- >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-us mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
