On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 9:53 AM Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aren't Interstate and US evident from the geographic extent as well? > Yes, that is my point, or at least it is evident with the current mapping practice. Road routes are not tagged (at least not according to the wiki) with network=nrn/rrn/etc. Whether a road network is national, or otherwise, is evident for two reasons: 1) All the routes with the same network tag will be spread across some geographic extent. So, one could see that there are routes all across the US with "network=US:I" and could conclude that this is a national network. 2) By the network tag itself, for example, in the "network=US:I" tag, there is no smaller jurisdiction indicated after US, so it must be a national network. If a hiking route was tagged with network=US:FS (Forest Servies) for example, one could see that (if that practice was generally followed), that there the Forest Service operates hiking routes all across the US (and not anywhere else), and thus that such a network was national in scope. And, the scope would be evident from the network tag itself, as there is no smaller jurisdiction following "US" in the network tag. In anyevent, my main point is we should be consistent and treat all route relations the same. If it is desirable to explicitly know the scope, why not have a "scope" tag, or leave the scope in the network tag, and have a new tag for "specific_network" (or whatever folks want to call it).
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
