Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 8 September 2011 10:48, Mark Pulley mrpul...@lizzy.com.au wrote: Quoting Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com: I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway 1 is at Ozroads: http://www.ozroads.com.au/NationalSystem/highway1.htm Ian seems to have a particular liking for the Princes Highway... http://www.ozroads.com.au/NSW/Highways/Princes/princes.htm ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this? license=CC0 perhaps? Possibly. I have to be careful about disclaiming my copyright vs. giving assurances on the license of such data. I don't know enough of the legal side to understand this. I wish that the copyright I gain in my works automatically was not applied to my works automatically, but at the same time 2 licenses require my works to be under a certain license. stuff derived from CC-BY-SA and information derived from nearmap, those licenses that CC-BY-SA must apply to my works. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:53, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: I write I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for having routes, rather than removing them. But these fall into your category of discovery and gathering knowledge, which is fine. We know the route exists, we just don't know where it is. One day we may find out, or not. Until then, we gather the knowledge we have and add it. The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether. In your examples, maybe. In my example, this certainly isn't the case. The issues are clear. We are talking about a mass renaming that happened in the 1920s, followed by 90 subsequent years of development. The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. As I said, I'll leave it be, but the chance that this will be developed into something meaningful, is zip. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. It's still a series of non-contiguous sections that is named, these sections belong as part of a route. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. The majority of the route, distance wise, would still exist as it has for a long time. As I said, I'll leave it be, but the chance that this will be developed into something meaningful, is zip. That's a very subjective thing to say, you claim it has no value, others have obviously disagreed, the main thing to take into account is what actual harm does it do to the map to exist as a relation, I say none, so far your suggested examples of harm are imho wrong also since the way should take precedence over any relation, this way you can give streets local names and the route sharing the same physical way can be shown where there no longer is a local route needing to be shown. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: I write I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing and you write So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for having routes, rather than removing them. If that was my entire argument, I'd just say that, but instead of that I said that it is arbitrary and confusing. Arbitrary because there is no touchstone of verifiability, it is just each person opinion. Confusing, The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether. because it is both a road name and a route, and it is impossible for them both to align. If this gets into a satnav which recommends you continue on the Princes Highway route, while actually turning off the Princes Highway road - what a mess. Why do we seek this? Way names are supposed to have preference, and if you are talking about local routes that differ in name this shouldn't be an issue and is one of the reasons to put highway names into routes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of the National Route 1 and the diversionary highway routes, like State Highway 60 - at least that is well defined. I just have something against this relation, because it is arbitrary and confusing. So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole route because it isn't contiguous? Most, if not all routes won't be contiguous, Ross pointed this out the other day but there is often on/off ramps, roads going from dual to single carriage way and back again, then you also have roundabouts, there is all sorts of reasons why gaps exists, but that is even more reason to have routes for them, so that the bits that are named Princess Highway can be tagged as such, and if bits are included that shouldn't be then remove the bits not the entire route. I really think verifiability is the key for routes, if we start adding stuff to the map that isn't on the ground or can't be verified... That may be a goal, but it doesn't mean it should be the only one, the process of mapping is one of going from some information to better information, and this is a continual process as things change over time, not just the fact that better sources of data can be mapped from. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:31:38 +1000 Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. It isn't a route any longer. I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. So you would be happier if there was a fourth dimension n the data, that of time? So that you could mark a route as 'original princes highway' and another route as 'princes highway 1990' and so on? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
I wrote: This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise discoverable. On Sep 6, 2011 3:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is an uncontroversial route number of some sequence of roads, then we should have a relation describing that same sequence of roads. ref=* tags on ways are ok; relations are better. Do you agree with that? Or are you contesting the actual value of relations? Yes. If there is an uncontroversial route number that applies to a sequence of roads, lets map it. Yes, a relation is the best way. The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. My example of the Princes Highway route from Sydney to Adelaide currently is one such route, where choosing what roads to include is often arbitary, and even if completed it may still not be a through route that can be followed, and may be confused with the actual road with the same name. I have no problem with the A10, A1, MR1, M1 etc being used on route relations. I wouldn't even have a problem with multiple Princes Highway routes over sections where such a route is clear and verifiable. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 08/09/11 07:58, Ian Sergeant wrote: The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. I take a pragmatic approach, something like this: Given my local knowledge, and being on-site, how would I direct somebody who is unfamiliar with the exact route but wants to be given turn-by-turn directions from A to a distant B. I've been mapping routes like the Hume and Hovell Walking Track. This includes unnamed paths, named roads and highways, and things like roundabouts (unnamed, of course). But they all form part of the track nevertheless. Sometimes the precise route is unclear. It doesn't really matter if I can make a safe and convenient choice for a routing algorithm to follow. If someone else knows better, I'm delighted for them to refine the route. John H ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
I wrote: I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. On 07/09/11 21:00, Liz wrote: So you would be happier if there was a fourth dimension n the data, that of time? So that you could mark a route as 'original princes highway' and another route as 'princes highway 1990' and so on? Well, we have railway=abandoned, so perhaps we need a route=abandoned? Seriously though, no. I'm still sticking to verifiability being a touchstone of OSM, and necessary given the nature of our community project. We can't each just go and make a route where we feel there should be one, without reasoning or evidence, and the try on the doesn't do any harm defence as a justification for its continued existence. Similar to HIghway 1. Probably as much in the Australian psyche as Route 66 is in the U.S, but routings and markings change, and we need to mark up the references on the ground. We can't mark a way as Highway 1 just because it had that cute sign pinned to a pole back in the 60s. I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. Of course, in 100 years time, if we do our jobs properly, someone will have a nice historical reference of the same. Anyway, much to the relief of all, I really will stop pushing this now. My last word on the issue. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: An actual connected route along roads on the ground in this instance either doesn't exist or cannot be determined from any verifiable source. OSM requires verifiability, for reasons I consider apparent. A route relation requires that there be an actual, connected route. A route is by definition an abstraction. It is an idea dreamed up by a committee somewhere, connecting various pieces of physical infrastructure. It can then be communicated in various ways: with physical signage, websites, pamphlets, maybe even legislation. However it's communicated, interpretation is required to work out which roads are in and which are out. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
Quoting Ian Sergeant ina...@gmail.com: I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway 1 is at Ozroads: http://www.ozroads.com.au/NationalSystem/highway1.htm Mark P. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made the change in fosm, http://api.fosm.org/api/0.6/changeset/102770/download feel free to mirror such change in OSM if you like (this changeset is licensed CC0). In such a case it is definitely useful to keep the Princess Highway route relation as that road, even though it has a different name, is still part of the Princess Highway, the signs say so. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made the change in fosm, http://api.fosm.org/api/0.6/changeset/102770/download feel free to mirror such change in OSM if you like (this changeset is licensed CC0). In such a case it is definitely useful to keep the Princess Highway route relation as that road, even though it has a different name, is still part of the Princess Highway, the signs say so. In Engadine, yes. In Sutherland, Wollongong, and numerous other places on the way to Adelaide, no. I've got pretty extensive imagery on the road from Engadine to Kirrawee. I'll post it to Panoramio, and reference it to the relevant ways/relations in OSM. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made the change in fosm, http://api.fosm.org/api/0.6/changeset/102770/download feel free to mirror such change in OSM if you like (this changeset is licensed CC0). Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this? license=CC0 perhaps? In such a case it is definitely useful to keep the Princess Highway route relation as that road, even though it has a different name, is still part of the Princess Highway, the signs say so. In Engadine, yes. In Sutherland, Wollongong, and numerous other places on the way to Adelaide, no. I've got pretty extensive imagery on the road from Engadine to Kirrawee. I'll post it to Panoramio, and reference it to the relevant ways/relations in OSM. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:20:15 +1000 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway according to my personal knowledge, it has run between Adelaide and Sydney via Melbourne for decades. But the ref number does not equal the Princes Highway Route 1 is Cairns to Darwin via coast, and was signposted thus in the 60s. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 12:50, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads, and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are going to run into trouble. Noting as well, that the document doesn't accurately define the route any more than the suburbs it runs through. You better start deleting the routes in the US as well then, because they often have 2 routes for each interstate per state... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 12:20, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway If memory serves correctly, it changes name through Melbourne. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. In the case of the princess highway it's also highway number one which circumnavigates Australia and changes name as it goes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 14:10, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: according to my personal knowledge, it has run between Adelaide and Sydney via Melbourne for decades. Hi Liz, This is fine and good, and common knowledge. However, when you start looking at the road at the micro-level on the ground, it ain't that simple. The original route designated during the Prince's visit isn't easy to identify, having been many decades since his visit. Since then towns have been bypassed, roads have been renamed, realigned, opened and closed. The RTA in NSW has an internal route that they call the Princes Highway - which is essentially the main road heading south along the coast (give or take). They nominate this route because it is the one they maintain as a state govt road with state funding. The only problem is, the the route they designate often doesn't follow the road named the Princes Highway, like the section from Bellambi to Fairy Meadow where the RTA route called the Princes Highway follows the Northern Distributor, rather than the Princes Highway. Confusing? The situation gets even worse in Victoria where you have some isolated sections of the Princes Highway running parallel to the Princes Freeway, The Princes Highway named sections don't form a through route. Other towns have a bypass route and through-town route - neither of which are called the Princes Highway. Which to choose? But the ref number does not equal the Princes Highway. Yes. What I'm talking about here is a route relation. I'm arguing that we don't need a named route relation called the Princes Highway. We should call the roads involved what they are called using the name tag on the roads. We should use the appropriate numerical route designators as they apply for the route descriptors, either using the ref tag, or a route relation. If people see the need to link the Princes Highway named sections as a common street using the appropriate relations for that purpose, then fine. Do you agree? It seems the Princes Highway can mean different things to different people, and unlike the route and highway numbers, we don't have a fixed reference point. Route 1 is Cairns to Darwin via coast, and was signposted thus in the 60s. Yeah. National Route 1 is groovy, man. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: The RTA in NSW has an internal route that they call the Princes Highway - which is essentially the main road heading south along the coast (give or take). They nominate this route because it is the one they maintain as a state govt road with state funding. The only problem is, the the route they designate often doesn't follow the road named the Princes Highway, like the section from Bellambi to Fairy Meadow where the RTA route called the Princes Highway follows the Northern Distributor, rather than the Princes Highway. Confusing? If there are two distinct Princes Highway routes, then having two relations would be reasonable. Give them names to make it clear. If there is a main route with alternative sections, that can be managed, too. If an authority designates a route that doesn't use sections of road called Princes Highway, it's really not the end of the world. Other towns have a bypass route and through-town route - neither of which are called the Princes Highway. Which to choose? Work it out case by case. What I'm talking about here is a route relation. I'm arguing that we don't need a named route relation called the Princes Highway. But your argument consists of I can't decide which roads should make up the relation, so let's delete the relation. We should call the roads involved what they are called using the name tag on the roads. We should use the appropriate numerical route designators as they apply for the route descriptors, either using the ref tag, or a route relation. If people see the need to link the Princes Highway named sections as a common street using the appropriate relations for that purpose, then fine. Do you agree? No. Ok, you don't like the uncertainty, I see that. You want perfect, pristine, unambiguous mapping, or nothing at all. But relations are good, they group stuff together meaningfully, and they are useful for rendering. It seems the Princes Highway can mean different things to different people, and unlike the route and highway numbers, we don't have a fixed reference point. Like I said, the world is messy and complicated, and we just have to deal with that. Route 1 is Cairns to Darwin via coast, and was signposted thus in the 60s. Yeah. National Route 1 is groovy, man. Princes Highway is part of route 1. See Wikipedia. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 11:55, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: What I'm talking about here is a route relation. I'm arguing that we don't need a named route relation called the Princes Highway. But your argument consists of I can't decide which roads should make up the relation, so let's delete the relation. No, I'm not say I can't decide. I'm say that there is no basis that I can see for anyone to make such a decision. An actual connected route along roads on the ground in this instance either doesn't exist or cannot be determined from any verifiable source. OSM requires verifiabilityhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability, for reasons I consider apparent. A route relation requires that there be an actual, connected route. On both these points, this isn't appropriate for a route relation. Princes Highway is part of route 1. This isn't helpful. National Route 1 and the Princes Hwy diverge at many points. National Route 1 follows the Southern Freeway south from Sydney for a start. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: [regarding a relation with gaps] I have surveyed, it is removed from the relation, and consequently the relation has a gap. My understanding is for this relation type - a route - gaps are not allowed. After all, this is the whole point of having a route isn't it? Route relations may have gaps. A route relation may have gaps because it is not yet complete on the ground, because it is not complete in OSM, or because the route in fact has gaps. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 7 September 2011 12:27, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Princes Highway is part of route 1. This isn't helpful. National Route 1 and the Princes Hwy diverge at many points. National Route 1 follows the Southern Freeway south from Sydney for a start. So what, how does that make routes less useful, if anything that makes them more useful since you can follow the route instead of particular highways. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If anything, the Princes Highway is *the* canonical road route in Australia, exactly as you describe: a single named route that is made up of many other roads with different names. But I'm not familiar with the Sydney end of it, so maybe I'm missing something. I'm also curious why there are more than one relation. Here's another Princes Highway relation in southeastern Melbourne: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/215662 Note the ref tag. According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. So best to use the route number to define a route when it exists, rather than a road name 'route', yes? I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. The Princes Hwy used to run through the town centre as the main road. The through route gets diverted around town to different road. Some time later the road running through centre of town gets assigned a different name (or made into pedestrian mall, one way, etc). The Princes Hwy road name no longer exists. It is apparent where the through route is, tagged with the route number. When the name and topology of the road has changed, I don't know how you can definitively tell where this Princes Highway Route, should go, it is fairly arbitrary. I think I've located the source of this named route, in an RTA internal road classification document. http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/downloads/lgr/reg_table_for_internet_31jan11.pdf This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads, and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are going to run into trouble. Noting as well, that the document doesn't accurately define the route any more than the suburbs it runs through. Ian. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 06/09/11 10:50, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley ben.kel...@gmail.com mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. So best to use the route number to define a route when it exists, rather than a road name 'route', yes? No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. The Princes Hwy used to run through the town centre as the main road. The through route gets diverted around town to different road. Some time later the road running through centre of town gets assigned a different name (or made into pedestrian mall, one way, etc). The Princes Hwy road name no longer exists. It is apparent where the through route is, tagged with the route number. When the name and topology of the road has changed, I don't know how you can definitively tell where this Princes Highway Route, should go, it is fairly arbitrary. Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route ways removed. As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different road names make up that highway. Just as many different road names make up the route relation for highway 1. Cheers Ross Ian. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com mailto:inas66%2b...@gmail.com wrote: Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway. It is just wrong IMO. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Australian_Tagging_** Guidelines#Route_Numbershttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers How do I tell where this named route goes? I've read the Australian tagging guidelines, but they seem to be quite at odds with the recommendations for using the relation elsewhere. Is there anywhere other than Australia where we attach a road name to a road named differently road? Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route ways removed. As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different road names make up that highway. Just as many different road names make up the route relation for highway 1. But what is the new route, and what is the old route? If we can't answer this question, then we can't map it. In Wollongong, you have the RTA official Princes Hwy route taking Bellambi Lane and the Northern Distributor, while the parallel road is named, the Princes Highway, Flinders St, Crown St. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Victoria you have the Princes Fwy, in some instances the Princes Highway runs next to it. The Princes Hwy in some sections isn't even a through route. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Sutherland you have the Sutherland Bypass on Acacia Rd, (Route MR1), the old Princes Hwy goes into Sutherland, and then stops. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? Do you see the problem? If we aren't mapping what is on the ground, what are we mapping? Who makes the decision, and how to we arbitrate. Not mapping what is verifiable on the ground is a radical departure for OSM, and we need to think this through again. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the new route, and what is the old route? If we can't answer this question, then we can't map it. Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Also, if you think road routes are complicated, try cycling routes! The documentation on them is pretty scant, and you have to piece together signage, documentation, local knowledge and common sense to map a meaningful route. Yes, it means that there are small elements of subjectivity in how we map, but that doesn't prevent the end result being very useful and meaningful. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 06/09/11 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Australian_Tagging___Guidelines#Route_Numbers http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers How do I tell where this named route goes? I've read the Australian tagging guidelines, but they seem to be quite at odds with the recommendations for using the relation elsewhere. Is there anywhere other than Australia where we attach a road name to a road named differently road? I don't know but that was the original reason for creating route relations with the highway name and a second with the highway number. Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route ways removed. As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different road names make up that highway. Just as many different road names make up the route relation for highway 1. But what is the new route, and what is the old route? If we can't answer this question, then we can't map it. Then leave what is there until someone goes and surveys it. In Wollongong, you have the RTA official Princes Hwy route taking Bellambi Lane and the Northern Distributor, while the parallel road is named, the Princes Highway, Flinders St, Crown St. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Victoria you have the Princes Fwy, in some instances the Princes Highway runs next to it. The Princes Hwy in some sections isn't even a through route. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? In Sutherland you have the Sutherland Bypass on Acacia Rd, (Route MR1), the old Princes Hwy goes into Sutherland, and then stops. Where does the Princes Hwy route go? Do you see the problem? If we aren't mapping what is on the ground, what are we mapping? Who makes the decision, and how to we arbitrate. Not mapping what is verifiable on the ground is a radical departure for OSM, and we need to think this through again. But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground. All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example. But if the sign says Old Princes Highway then it should be changed to that and removed from the Princes Highway relation. If it's part of another named road then use alt_name. Look at the Warlu Way in WA, not yet in osm, it does not have a route number but could be included in a route relation. It's not a through route but has a start and end and has many side branches. Likewise the Savanah Way, some of which is in osm. Because things change then the route relation needs to change. If you find these things on the ground then you need to modify them rather than just writing about it here. But don't just delete the whole relation because one section is wrong, correct the section(s) that are wrong. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 13:48, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mean we should just delete everything. Agreed, but not by any stretch what I'm suggesting. Yes, it means that there are small elements of subjectivity in how we map, but that doesn't prevent the end result being very useful and meaningful. I'm going to create a route called the Princes Highway. I'm going to place roads in it which aren't called the Princes Highway, when the road called the Princes Highway goes off in another direction, or exists elsewhere. Hmmm.. it is subjective, but I can't see how it is useful or meaningful. This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise discoverable. Is there another map in the world you can point to, which maps what we are trying to do here? I can see some reasoning for when the Princes Highway changes name temporarily through a country town, that we have an alt_name through the town, beyond that though... Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On 6 September 2011 13:59, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground. All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example. But if the sign says Old Princes Highway then it should be changed to that and removed from the Princes Highway relation. If it's part of another named road then use alt_name. I have surveyed, it is removed from the relation, and consequently the relation has a gap. My understanding is for this relation type - a route - gaps are not allowed. After all, this is the whole point of having a route isn't it? If you find these things on the ground then you need to modify them rather than just writing about it here. But don't just delete the whole relation because one section is wrong, correct the section(s) that are wrong. If I thought the sections were possible to correct, I would just do so. However, with this relation, I see it as hopelessly flawed, and my inclination is to delete it. Since there seems to be support for it, I'll leave it be, and move along, and hope someone else can make more of it. I do pity the person who has this information currently in their navman, I think they'll be lost pretty damn quick. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise discoverable. I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is an uncontroversial route number of some sequence of roads, then we should have a relation describing that same sequence of roads. ref=* tags on ways are ok; relations are better. Do you agree with that? Or are you contesting the actual value of relations? Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
