Ahh right that is why there is US:US It gives a logical and consistent construction as well as delineated fields for building the name with the ability to make state specific shield rules based on it.
-- Dale Puch On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jason Straub <strau...@yahoo.com> wrote: > As the person that just got done labelling each TX state highway, I'll > chime in here with some comments. > > For the network tag, I think that the labelling should be (country : state > network : network within the state : subnetwork in state), while the ref is > JUST the number for that highway. So: > > US:I -> Interstate > US:I:BUS -> Business Interstate > US:US -> US Route > US:US:BUS -> Business US Route > US:US:ALT:BUS -> Business Alt US Route > US:TX -> Texas State Highway > US:TX:FM -> Farm to Market > US:TX:RM -> Ranch To Market > US:TX:FM:Bus -> Business Farm to Market > > Having been through most of the highways in TX at least, this works for all > that i've labelled, whether it's still that way or not. I prefer to have > the final labels show the state abbreviation and number (TX 10) instead of > generic state labeling (SH 10) (TX has state highways, not state routes), > but am willing to work with either. Once a useful mapping tiling appears > that uses state shields, this wont matter nearly as much. > > Jason > 25or6to4 > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us