On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 5:21 PM Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us < talk-us@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> For the last few months, I've been seeing "Future I-87" signs along > portions of US-64 and US-17 in North Carolina. I-87[0] exists on a section > of highway near Raleigh, NC, and will eventually extend to Norfolk, VA. > > Should I start a relation for "Future I-87" and add those sections of > highway that are already known to be part of the project to the relation? > > My opinion: Map the parts that are signed as 'Future I-87' in the field. The extent to which we map 'future' routes is controversial, but if there are M1 signs accompanied with signs in the style of M4 that read 'FUTURE' instead of 'ALT', 'TEMPORARY', etc., then very few mappers would object to mapping something that's signed in the field. There are already routes mapped with route=road, network=US:I:Future, with ref=26, ref=74, ref=785 and ref=840. I've been wanting to do 'Future I-86' in New York, but I'd have to drive it to see precisely where it's signed. (I can find out easily where the DOT says it is built, not so easily where they've actually marked it.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
