Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Svavar Kjarrval]

On fös 2.sep 2016 21:32, LeTopographeFou wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM
> warn me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with
> JOSM, or at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a
> way/node in a relation.

It seems like you're right. JOSM has been suppressing that warning and
always assuming the answer no. I must've, by accident or frustration,
selected the radio button to never ask me that again. Since the option
to re-enable the warning isn't anywhere else but the advanced
preferences, I presumed the support was dropped. The corresponding
preferences entry is "message.add_primitive_to_relation" (set to "true"
to enable the warning).

After enabling that warning, I could add both duplicated ways and nodes.
Perhaps a similar thing is happening to the topic author.

- Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Jo]

I'm not a big fan of the wiki. I'd have to reread it every 2 weeks. I can
tell you how I map PT...

Start with stops ordered in proper sequence
  If a stop is served twice, add it twice
Then the ways, also ordered sequentially
  this allows visual check of continuity
No forward/backward roles, they are hard to maintain and clutters the
overview (that line on the right, which, ideally, is continuous)

I'm not adding stop_position nodes to the route relations either, but
that's a personal preference to keep things simple. Platform nodes for the
stops are enough to describe the sequence order of the stops.

Polyglot

2016-09-02 23:32 GMT+02:00 LeTopographeFou :

> Hi,
>
> When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM warn
> me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with JOSM, or
> at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a way/node in a
> relation.
>
> AFAIK order of members of type "way" in a relation of type route doesn't
> matter. The wiki states only that the stops should be ordered (a 'should',
> not a 'shall'). But I think that to order the ways is a good practice and
> should be recommended also. Moreover nothing is stating that stops should
> be gathered in the relation or placed between the two ways it is linked to.
>
> Finally, you can put "forward" and "backward" as roles of the ways to
> specify which way the route is taking. This is even more usefull when a way
> is added twice because the bus has to reverse. Please note that there is
> also forward:stop and backward:stop (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org
> /wiki/Relation:route#Members).
>
> LeTopographeFou
>
>
> Le 02/09/2016 à 23:11, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit :
>
>> On fös 2.sep 2016 20:54, André Pirard wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote:
>>>
   JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it
 doesn't remove repeats which were already there.

>>> I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways.
>>> Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right.
>>>
>> My statement applies, in my experience, also to ways. I haven't been
>> able to add duplicate ways to relations for a long time (it was possible
>> once but later disabled). It's been causing a lot of holes in the local
>> bus relations since some of them go from A to B, circle around a
>> neighbourhood until they return to B, and then go back to A. In some of
>> those cases, being able to add duplicate nodes is essential for the bus
>> route in OSM to reflect the actual one.
>>
>> - Svavar Kjarrval
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

[Svavar Kjarrval]

On fim 1.sep 2016 12:10, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Why not (also) map the ones where it isn't allowed? You probably can't count 
> on routing software implementing all country specific defaults (at least 
> currently it isn't the case with the popular osm-based ones, so they need 
> specific advice from the mappers in order to work well).
>
> To make sure that this is an relative exceptional situation in the context 
> (country), for your fellow mappers? in any case you could also map the 
> traffic sign, so your precious surveyed "insider knowledge" has better 
> chances to persist in the db.
>
> From a practical point of view, routing engines will generally be very 
> reluctant to suggest u-turns, because they tend to take a lot of time or 
> might even be close to impossible (with lots of traffic). 
>
> This said, I could imagine restriction=allowed like you suggested. Logically, 
> restriction=no would also make sense, but it bears the risk of being 
> interpreted falsely (if someone checks for restriction=no* as short way for 
> no_left_turn, no_right_turn etc.)
>
> cheers,
> Martin 
>
Authors of routing engines are, in fact, forced to make such a decision
for every traffic rule they intend to support. If they want to support
u-turns, they need to decide what to do if there are no explicit u-turn
rules available for each specific spot. Since the authors are unlikely
to research the default cases for all areas, I would guess they use pick
one to use for all countries and wait until someone files a bug report
stating otherwise for their area. With so many routing engines available
it's unrealistic for people in every country/area to check the defaults
to verify they conform with their area. This problem is not limited to
u-turns, of course.

It would seem to make sense, in these types of cases, to define the
general traffic rule of an area and focus on tagging the exceptions
within it. Doing otherwise would introduce unnecessary complexity to
their calculations and data bloat, or they would need to run a process
to strip out the traffic rules which conform with their default traffic
rule. This could be avoided if we provided the defaults either in the
data and/or via a wiki page the routing engine authors can check.

- Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[LeTopographeFou]

Hi,

When I add a way/node which has already been added in a relation JOSM 
warn me and ask me to confirm or to cancel. So there is no issue with 
JOSM, or at least with the actual revision, to add more than once a 
way/node in a relation.


AFAIK order of members of type "way" in a relation of type route doesn't 
matter. The wiki states only that the stops should be ordered (a 
'should', not a 'shall'). But I think that to order the ways is a good 
practice and should be recommended also. Moreover nothing is stating 
that stops should be gathered in the relation or placed between the two 
ways it is linked to.


Finally, you can put "forward" and "backward" as roles of the ways to 
specify which way the route is taking. This is even more usefull when a 
way is added twice because the bus has to reverse. Please note that 
there is also forward:stop and backward:stop 
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Members).


LeTopographeFou

Le 02/09/2016 à 23:11, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit :

On fös 2.sep 2016 20:54, André Pirard wrote:

On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote:

  JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it
doesn't remove repeats which were already there.

I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways.
Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right.

My statement applies, in my experience, also to ways. I haven't been
able to add duplicate ways to relations for a long time (it was possible
once but later disabled). It's been causing a lot of holes in the local
bus relations since some of them go from A to B, circle around a
neighbourhood until they return to B, and then go back to A. In some of
those cases, being able to add duplicate nodes is essential for the bus
route in OSM to reflect the actual one.

- Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Svavar Kjarrval]

On fös 2.sep 2016 20:54, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote:
>>  JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it
>> doesn't remove repeats which were already there.
> I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways.
> Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right.

My statement applies, in my experience, also to ways. I haven't been
able to add duplicate ways to relations for a long time (it was possible
once but later disabled). It's been causing a lot of holes in the local
bus relations since some of them go from A to B, circle around a
neighbourhood until they return to B, and then go back to A. In some of
those cases, being able to add duplicate nodes is essential for the bus
route in OSM to reflect the actual one.

- Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Jo]

This is very odd, as there are definitely bus routes which serve the same
stop more than once, so adding nodes more than once should be possible as
well.

Let me know if you need real life examples

Jo

2016-09-02 22:54 GMT+02:00 André Pirard :

> On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote:
>
> On fös 2.sep 2016 14:07, André Pirard wrote:
>
> On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote:
>
> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have
>
> aBBc
>
> Where c is the service way of the terminal.
>
> I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node
> (B) twice in succession makes no sense.
> I bet that JOSM won't be happy about it.
>
>
>  JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it
> doesn't remove repeats which were already there.
>
> I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways.
> Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right.
>
> Cheers
>
> André.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[André Pirard]

On 2016-09-02 22:20, Svavar Kjarrval wrote:
> On fös 2.sep 2016 14:07, André Pirard wrote:
>> On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote:
>>> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have
>>>
>>> aBBc
>>>
>>> Where c is the service way of the terminal.
>> I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node
>> (B) twice in succession makes no sense.
>> I bet that JOSM won't be happy about it.
>>
>  JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it
> doesn't remove repeats which were already there.
I was showing nodes and Jo is showing ways.
Repeating nodes is not allowed but repeating ways is all-right.

Cheers

André.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Jack Burke]

Tagging maxspeed is purely for a router.  So are turn restrictions.

As for turn:lanes meant for complex intersectionsthe examples in the
wiki show very simple uses.  I can't see anything in it, or the discussion
page, indicating that it is only for complex intersections.  Certainly
there is a lot of talk about how to use it with some complex roads, but
overall it appears to be intended for exactly this type of situation
(namely, indicating lane guidance for exits).

--jack


On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease  wrote:
>
>> I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be
>> "tagging for the router".
>>
>
> On some level, all of it is.
>
>
>> I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of
>> describing complex intersections. Tagging simple intersections with this
>> scheme just to get a routing engine to display the correct arrow icon is a
>> waste of time.
>>
>
> A sufficiently smart router could potentially use the info to determine
> whether or not it's plausible to make Y number of lane changes of X
> distance to make a turn and route accordingly.
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Svavar Kjarrval]

On fös 2.sep 2016 14:07, André Pirard wrote:
> On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote:
>> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have
>>
>> aBBc
>>
>> Where c is the service way of the terminal.
> I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node
> (B) twice in succession makes no sense.
> I bet that JOSM won't be happy about it.
>
 JOSM doesn't allow the user to add any repeats at all. Fortunately, it
doesn't remove repeats which were already there.

- Svavar Kjarrval


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:18 PM, David Mease  wrote:

> I thing my reservations about this type of tagging is that this may be
> "tagging for the router".
>

On some level, all of it is.


> I still view the turn:lanes scheme as a (probably incomplete) way of
> describing complex intersections. Tagging simple intersections with this
> scheme just to get a routing engine to display the correct arrow icon is a
> waste of time.
>

A sufficiently smart router could potentially use the info to determine
whether or not it's plausible to make Y number of lane changes of X
distance to make a turn and route accordingly.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-02 18:04 GMT+02:00 Janko Mihelić :

> I'm not sure. Natural=cave is for natural caves, but the wiki on the cave
> page says that man made caves are historic=mine:




It doesn't say they are mines, it says that man made caves might be mines.
It also says that "mining tunnels, air raid shelters or dugouts" aren't
caves, but it doesn't speak about Grottoes for instance, about which
wikipedia writes that they are "natural or artificial caves".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grotto

Besides this, in the first five years of that OSM wiki article there was no
mention of artificial caves, it was only 2 years ago when LastGrape decided
to put this sentence about man made caves onto this page, and it is not
clear whether this is really the consensus of the community or just a not
well thought through sentence he unilaterally put in.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

[Janko Mihelić]

I'm not sure. Natural=cave is for natural caves, but the wiki on the cave
page says that man made caves are historic=mine:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cave#Man_Made

Historic=mine wiki talks only about mineral mines.

Shelter_type=rock_shelter is also a natural rock formation, not deep enough
to be called a cave.

In other words, we don't have appropriate tags. I would rather use
natural=cave than rock_shelter. At least it correctly shows the type of the
hole, if not the way it was created. We also use natural=water for man made
reservoirs, so I think we can use natural for man made caves too.
Dana 2. 9. 2016. 15:44 "demon.box"  je napisao/la:

> hi, how can I tag correctly this artificial cave, used like a shelter for
> the
> austriac soldiers during the 1915-1918 first world war?
>
> 
>
> amenity=shelter
> shelter_type=rock_shelter
> man_made=yes
> historic=yes
>
> it could be correct?
>
> p.s. it's located near to Monte Tremalzo (Italy)
>
> thanks very much.
>
> --enrico
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com
> /artificial-cave-historic-military-shelter-tp5881560.html
> Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 02 set 2016, alle ore 15:43, demon.box  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> hi, how can I tag correctly this artificial cave, used like a shelter for the
> austriac soldiers during the 1915-1918 first world war?
> 
>  
> 
> amenity=shelter
> shelter_type=rock_shelter
> man_made=yes
> historic=yes


what about 
military=bunker
bunker_type=rock-cut
start_date=1915

the bunker_type tag is already widely used, the value was invented on the fly, 
maybe you can find something that is already used and pertinent: 
http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/bunker_type#values

not completely sure about military=bunker, it would be suitable for military 
protection, while the shelter tag you suggest is suitable for protection 
against the weather.

I believe that a start_date tag would serve the purpose of historical placement 
much better than a historic=yes tag which really says almost nothing. Similarly 
the man_made=yes, which is implied by the word rock-cut and can be left out

It would still be desirable in this context to find a tag that says that the 
feature has been created by the Austrian Army. Is there already something in 
use?

Cheers,
Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[André Pirard]

On 2016-09-02 15:19, Jo wrote:
> The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have
>
> aBBc
>
> Where c is the service way of the terminal.
I think that, just like within a plain highway, using the same node (B)
twice in succession makes no sense.
I bet that JOSM won't be happy about it.

Cheers

André.


>
> Polyglot
>
> 2016-09-02 14:13 GMT+02:00 André Pirard  >:
>
> On 2016-09-02 11:43, Michael Tsang wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses 
>> need 
>> reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role 
>> in 
>> the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that 
>> segment of the road?
>>
>> Michael
> Hi,
>
> Supposing that the bus passes the T(erminus) point, goes to the
> E(nd) point and comes back to T(erminus) point,
> your relation will simply contain  .abcTET
> The other relation that describes the return journey will probably
> contain only Tcba...
>
> Cheers
>
> André.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] artificial cave, historic military shelter

[demon.box]

hi, how can I tag correctly this artificial cave, used like a shelter for the
austriac soldiers during the 1915-1918 first world war?

 

amenity=shelter
shelter_type=rock_shelter
man_made=yes
historic=yes

it could be correct?

p.s. it's located near to Monte Tremalzo (Italy)

thanks very much.

--enrico 



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/artificial-cave-historic-military-shelter-tp5881560.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Jo]

The way I understand this, no explicit tagging is needed. You could have

aBBc

Where c is the service way of the terminal.

Polyglot

2016-09-02 14:13 GMT+02:00 André Pirard :

> On 2016-09-02 11:43, Michael Tsang wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need
> reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in
> the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that
> segment of the road?
>
> Michael
>
> Hi,
>
> Supposing that the bus passes the T(erminus) point, goes to the E(nd)
> point and comes back to T(erminus) point,
> your relation will simply contain  .abcTET
> The other relation that describes the return journey will probably contain
> only Tcba...
>
> Cheers
>
> André.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

[André Pirard]

On 2016-09-02 11:43, Michael Tsang wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need 
> reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in 
> the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that 
> segment of the road?
>
> Michael
Hi,

Supposing that the bus passes the T(erminus) point, goes to the E(nd)
point and comes back to T(erminus) point,
your relation will simply contain  .abcTET
The other relation that describes the return journey will probably
contain only Tcba...

Cheers

André.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-09-02 10:55 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> actually, if it's just decorative, it's not art ;-)
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorative_arts
>
> =P



admittedly it is not completely clear what osm "artwork" is referring to
(it's "public art" according to the wiki), and whether you categorize
decorative arts as art or craft.
Would you classify particular pieces of architecture as artwork in OSM?
Even discussing about this raises questions (is this suitable for OSM or is
it too subjective / requires judgement rather than being "objective" etc.?)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] bus route with reversing

[Michael Tsang]

Hi all,

I am mapping bus routes in my city. There is a route where the buses need 
reversing in order to enter the bus terminus. Is there a "standard" role in 
the route relation which denotes that the bus is to reverse through that 
segment of the road?

Michael
-- 
Sent from KMail

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Permissive turn restrictions

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 01 set 2016, alle ore 12:00, Nick Hocking <
> nick.hock...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >
> > Turn restriction seem to be either mandatory (only) or prohibitive (no)
> but I think we need a permissive one, maybe (allowed)
>
>
> Why not (also) map the ones where it isn't allowed? You probably can't
> count on routing software implementing all country specific defaults (at
> least currently it isn't the case with the popular osm-based ones, so they
> need specific advice from the mappers in order to work well).
>

Let's see, for one area in the US let's start off with creating 3+
no-u-turn relations for every intersection that has a yield sign, stop sign
or traffic signal in all of Oregon and (very likely, since they're usually
on par with Oregon) Idaho and Washington State, minus maybe a few hundred
where signs explicitly allow u-turns.  I would honestly be surprised if
that doesn't put us at least well into 7 figures of new relations just
right there.  I've brought this up in previous threads personally regarding
that region.


> From a practical point of view, routing engines will generally be very
> reluctant to suggest u-turns, because they tend to take a lot of time or
> might even be close to impossible (with lots of traffic).
>

Ideally, this should be a user-selectable option (to select the user's
preference/locale's default), overridden by the appropriate relation
(no-u-turn or (and I'm proposing this) u-turn-ok) for smaller vehicles
(bicycle, car, motorcycle...), and literally short of hell or high water
avoid for more difficult to turn modes (bus, goods, hgv, horsebuggy...).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Artwork problems

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 02 set 2016, alle ore 00:35, Daniel Koć  ha scritto:
> 
> How do we know when "main purpose is to remind us of a person or an event" or 
> is just decorative


actually, if it's just decorative, it's not art ;-)

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Freeway exit tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Jack Burke  wrote:

> Would love to compare notes on that, but it'll have to be later next week.
>
> If you want to look at what I do for exits, feel free to examine pretty
> much all of them on I 75 south of Atlanta, as well as through downtown.
>

No problem.  Another, more side-by-side comparison you can see now would be
US 75 in Oklahoma.  I'm working northbound-only right now (fixing only
glaring inconsistency on the southbound side for the time being), working
north from the Red River/Texas state line.  I've made it to the south end
of the Durant business loop so far.  The interstates in Oklahoma are
already done, though I'm probably going to have to revisit that since a
cross-state road trip is what brought my attention to "none" not being well
tolerated by data consumers.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging