Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are still being used too) Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions for the different styles): I-26: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG I-74: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments inside of relations:network=US:I:Future However, somebody else suggested this: network=US:I modifier=Future Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. -James (rickmastfan67)
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
