On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
>> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
>> option of those above.
>
> Why?
Why add a tag to further describe an arcane, minor detail, in a small
portion of the world,
* Richard Weait [2012-03-13 10:30 -0400]:
> adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite
> option of those above.
Why?
> increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt
> follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the
> least surpri
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> I'd like to solicit some thoughts on the tagging for special routes
> (commonly known as bannered routes)[0]. In route relations, it's
> customary to separate the network and the reference number. How do or
> should special routes fit into th
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-03-11 22:30 -0400]:
> It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise
> there's inconsistency between an alternate signed as US 1 Alternate
> and one signed as US 1A (with the suffix in the shield). In each
> case I'll also use the modifier tag (modifier=A
It's obvious to me that the "banner" is not part of the network. US 1
Alternate is part of the U.S. Highway system (US:US), not some mythical
"U.S. Highway Alternate" system.
It also makes the most sense to put it in the ref tag. Otherwise there's
inconsistency between an alternate signed as U
