Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
* Richard Weait rich...@weait.com [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 surprise to naive consumers of the data. So you get the reverse questions from NE2. }; We (so far) mostly use the network tag as a hierarchy of ownership, not containment: the US:MD network is for Maryland's roads and Maryland is in the US, but its roads are not members of the US network. Does it make sense to double up on the meanings of network tags, so that, say, US:NJ:Business would be a business route that's a member of the New Jersey state highway network, but US:NJ:CR would be a county road that's not a member of the state network? Is it still easier for data consumers if they have to differentiate between those two cases? Compared to the scenario where we add a modifier tag for special routes, data consumers already have to consider two tags to work with route relations. Would adding a third make a difference? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Frederick! He's eating a screw! -- Eat-Man '98 --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [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=Alternate/A). But US 1A and US 1 Alternate are signed quite differently. From the perspective of a driver on the road, the US 1 Alternate signing is much more obviously a variant route of US 1. (US 1A even has its/their own page on Wikipedia, while the US 1 Alternates are listed with the other special routes on the Bannered routes of US 1 page. Not that Wikipedia dictates our actions, but it's indicative of other people's thinking on the matter.) Note that I'm not strictly disagreeing with you. I do personally like the separate network, ref, modifier tagging approach a little more than the others, but I also don't consider myself to have that extensive an understanding of road networks, either in the US or worldwide. I mostly want to see what sort of community consensus there is here, so the data consumer I'm working on will work in a reasonable way. I'd hoped to have feedback from several people, but since you're the only person who's responded so far, you get all the questions. :| -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- If I'm drunk and tell you to grab my wrist, don't. -- Keith Engle, Aikido blackbelt --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com 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 that? I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of them is the best fit for the way people think about special routes in a general sense. Let's consider one of US Route 1's alternate routes[1]. We can think of it as: * An independent route within the US Highway system whose reference number happens to be alphanumeric. network=US:US ref=1 Alternate (but people might use ref=1 Alt, because that's what's on some of the signs) * A route within the subset of the US Highway system consisting of alternate routes: network=US:US:Alternate ref=1 -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Wow, I'm being shot at from both sides. That means I *must* be right. :-) -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging * A route related to the main US Route 1, but with an additional tag indicating that it's a bannered offshoot: network=US:US ref=1 banner=Alternate I'm partial to the idea of separating the banner from the reference number, but I'm not sure how any of these ideas mesh with the understandings of people with more experience with road networks than I have. tagging@ is included because I'm not sure how global a practice this sort of thing is, even though it's quite common in the US. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_route [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannered_routes_of_U.S._Route_1#Alternate_routes adding a tag for banner=Alternate/Business/Truck is my least-favourite option of those above. increasing specificity on the network tag like network=US:US:Alt follows the original intent of the network tag. It also offers the least surprise to naive consumers of the data. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
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 that? I'm torn between three views and I'm not sure which of them is the best fit for the way people think about special routes in a general sense. Let's consider one of US Route 1's alternate routes[1]. We can think of it as: * An independent route within the US Highway system whose reference number happens to be alphanumeric. network=US:US ref=1 Alternate (but people might use ref=1 Alt, because that's what's on some of the signs) * A route within the subset of the US Highway system consisting of alternate routes: network=US:US:Alternate ref=1 * A route related to the main US Route 1, but with an additional tag indicating that it's a bannered offshoot: network=US:US ref=1 banner=Alternate I'm partial to the idea of separating the banner from the reference number, but I'm not sure how any of these ideas mesh with the understandings of people with more experience with road networks than I have. tagging@ is included because I'm not sure how global a practice this sort of thing is, even though it's quite common in the US. [0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_route [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bannered_routes_of_U.S._Route_1#Alternate_routes -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Wow, I'm being shot at from both sides. That means I *must* be right. :-) -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Route Relations and Special (Bannered) Routes
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 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=Alternate/A). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
