On Oct 21, 2012, at 5:28 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > On 2012-10-20 4:00 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: >> - Normalizing network names for all county routes with the ":CR" infix > > I'm not enthusiastic about sticking `:CR` in all the county route relations. > I favor `US:[state]:[county]`, at least for the relations in Ohio, for the > same reason we have `US:[state]` rather than `US:SR:[state]`. It doesn't look > like you touched any Ohio county routes, but that's probably because you > didn't realize that's what they are. :-) > > Ohio county route relations' `network`s conform to a simple pattern: > `US:OH:[ABC]`, where [ABC] is the county's three-letter, all-caps ODOT code. > Obviously, the codes aren't used as commonly as USPS state abbreviations, but > many counties use them on signage, and they're quite handy for this purpose.
That's right, I didn't understand those and they didn't look like county names, so I left them alone. The nice thing about the ":CR" part is that it helps explain what the word is after, for example county names. There are only 50 states so it seems easier to just say "US:[state]", but there are loads more counties and it's impractical to remember them all on sight. > Having the extra `:CR` component might make sense in states like New Jersey > and California that have consistent, statewide county route standards. But in > Ohio, most counties that signpost their routes do it in different ways, in > violation of the state MUTCD. There are so many variations that entire > websites [1] are devoted to documenting them. (And as you'd imagine, some > townships have their own unique route shields, too.) That's interesting and worth knowing, thanks. > You mentioned that using `:CR` makes it possible to "correctly interpret" > county routes without knowing the county names. I guess that depends on what > we expect the relations to be used for. To a developer generating shields for > display on a map, `:CR` would suggest standardizing on, say, the blue and > gold pentagonal shield, when in fact that would be misleading in maybe > three-quarters of the state. And I'd say the shields are the /only/ > interesting thing about Ohio county routes. > > By the way, if anyone's interested in rendering these shields, I've started a > collection of SVG templates at Wikimedia Commons [2]. One thing I learned > while making these templates is that some counties include the township name > in their county route shields. Presumably, a route that crosses township > lines would have more than one shield variant. Should we have subrelations > with the township name in `modifier`? The blue and gold shields are used in many places around the country, right? I think you're right, that using ":CR" where those are in place would make a lot of sense. I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly different approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier tags. I can standardize the US:US and US:I networks along with US:CA where I live, but I should hold off on attempting to overfit other states' network tags. -mike. ---------------------------------------------------------------- michal migurski- [email protected] 415.558.1610 _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
