I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
