* Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> [2013-06-24 09:11 -0500]: > network=US:I > modifier=Future
* James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> [2013-06-25 00:15 -0400]: > 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? There's been discussion about how to tag the relations for bannered routes in the past. My understanding of the list consensus, as I summarize in this previous email: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Highway-Shield-Rendering-tp5612357p5640994.html is that "Future Interstate 26" should be tagged as follows: network=US:I:Future ref=26 modifier=Future However, in a Google Hangout last week, Paul indicated a desire to reopen the discussion on tagging bannered routes, so here we go: There are basically three options for tagging bannered routes. I'll use Future I-26 as an example here, but the principle applies equally to any other routes. Option A (network-classification-per-banner): network=US:I:Future ref=26 modifier=Future Option B (banner-in-ref): network=US:I ref=26 Future modifier=Future Option C (banner-in-modifier): network=US:I ref=26 modifier=Future In my opinion, either option A or option B should be used. Because a veriety of people with a variety of OSM experience edit OSM data, I think it's important to consider how damaged or incomplete data will be treated by data consumers. In any of the above cases, a data consumer that only sees or understands the ref= tag (e.g. something that was written to handle ways and is now looking at a relation) will not get a complete picture, but also won't get a wrong impression (thinking that I-26 is US 26 or something similar). Furthermore, the network/ref tagging has been pretty well established on the wiki and in general usage for some time now. If a data consumer only sees or understands the network and ref tags, both options A and B will give it a complete picture of the route, but option C will be incorrectly interpreted as the main I-26. I think that's a pretty strong argument against option C. In programming or database design, one strives to eliminate all duplication, but in a project like OSM I think a little duplication of data serves as useful redundancy. Note that if the modifier tag is present, both options A and B can be processed to remove the redundant information if that's desired. I think the choice between options A and B is more of an aesthetic one. What matters is that there is a consensus on what the tagging is. I think in previous discussions more people were tipped toward option A because it makes the decision of when to use a different network easy, because "network" essentially means "different road sign". Option B has a little more grey area, since there were people (well, mostly NE2) saying things like "alternate and business Interstates are clearly not part of the Interstate Highway System, but alternate and business US Highways are clearly part of the US Highway System" (paraphrase from [1] and [2]). [1]: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Highway-Shield-Rendering-tp5612357p5636639.html [2]: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Use-of-ref-tag-on-state-highways-tp5285587p5285594.html As I said before, my understanding of the list consensus in previous discussions is for option A and that's what my renderer understands (see [3]). If you have an opinion on what we should be using (whether it's one of options A, B, or C above or some other system), I guess this is the place to voice that opinion. [3]: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us