On 11/30/13 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/11/30 Peter Davies <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12. For my > applications I'd prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to > track the overlaps (which we and our 10 state DOT customers call > double banding). But if you also want to suppress shields from > maps in such areas, could we enter the way ref as I 394;US > 12|unsigned ? > > > > Usually you would have (at least) 2 relations, one for each ref. The > way ref (if set at all) will often have multiple values, semicolon > separated. Not sure if you have a different agreement in the US, but > it doesn't matter if the ref is signed or not, as long as you can find > it in some kind of publicly available documentation (with compatible > licensing). in the US, we've been trying to use unsigned_ref= for situations where the road has a designation but no signage. County routes in Westchester and Onondaga Counties in NY are examples of this. additionally, many of the highways in the NYS parkway system have public designations like "Taconic State Parkway" but they also have unsigned reference numbers in the state inventory, so ref=TSP combined with unsigned_ref=<inventory number> is the way we've been going.
richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
