On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ian Dees <[email protected]> wrote: > I thought this had been decided: we decided on route relations with various > tags designating the kind (interstate/state/county route), the number, and > the name. The ways retain their information for backwards compatibility. > Route relations already exist for interstates and US routes and many of the > county roads, so there may simply be some retagging to do.
I would agree with this (except there's rarely a name applicable to the entire route). However we do need editor support to distinguish between relations; right now if you load in JOSM two relations network=US:US ref=90 and network=US:FL ref=90 they look the same. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
