I see the route numbers as potentially valuable to differentiate routes where two may cross or duplex. Unless I'm missing something fundamental, pretty much every aspect in a state=proposed relation isn't final until it's official, including the route number. Especially since as far as I'm aware, only USBR 76 and possibly USBR 1 has a name.
On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Mike N <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/8/2013 4:18 PM, KerryIrons wrote: > >> Here’re just some of the comments from OSM members: >> > > I'll add my opinion that I don't see the need for route numbers to be > assigned to proposed routes. Dashed lines suffice for the purposes of > previewing a possible path. > > (In which case, like everything else of this sort: admin boundaries, > etc, proposed cycle routes could just be stored and rendered outside of the > OSM database on an OpenProposedCycleMap.org rendering.) > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-us<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
