On Dec 31, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd go with ref_unsigned on that, just to be orthagonal with other unsigned > refs (like Oregon's state highways as opposed to state, US and Interstate > routes; or Oklahoma's unsigned 0, 00 and 000).
Yup, there is that, too. Anybody else want to chime in about old_ref or ref_unsigned or other flavors of those (in the loose semantic sense)? We might nail down some neat and tidy syntax with a brief statement of the fully known universe of all (more? most?) similar tags (he types hopefully). > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Albert Pundt <[email protected]> wrote: > It also allows for ref:legislative to be used (much like ref:penndot > throughout Pennsylvania) in states that still use these separate legislative > routes. > > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea > <[email protected]> wrote: > BTW, I'm all for your old_ref_legislative -> old_ref:legislative proposal. > It seems it would harmonize tags in the East and West (of the USA). > > Briefly (my reasoning is): combining tagging conventions with tagging > conventions growth = growth in OSM. It is surprising how resolving small > syntax and semantics blurs like these truly helps everything! _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
