Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote: First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references of *routes*, not of *ways*. Seems like whenever I point that out, the counterargument is that there should be different tags for refs that actually do have anything at all to do with the way, rather than putting route refs where they belong in route relations... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote: And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck. And having no shields at all is a big improvent. Oh, wait, it’s not. No, it's a step toward fixing the current mess. No, fixing the renderers is what’s needed to fix the current “mess”. In what strange alternate universe do you live where deleting valid information which is stored following the current documented system, is not vandalism? First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references of *routes*, not of *ways*. The numbers are references of neither. “ways” is a concept built by openstreetmap, and has no true analogue in the real world. You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references of *streets*, not of *ways*”. But that’s both silly and irrelevant. We have to apply the tags we have to the elements we have. So just like applying a name= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the street named foo”, we must apply a ref= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the route with reference foo” in order to get it to show up on the map. It’s what we’ve got for now; until we have something better we have to live with it. Secondly, they are redundant. In what strange alternative universe do you live in where deleting redundant information is vandalism? The world we actually live in, where sometimes you need redundant data in order to be able to make use of it. At some point (hopefully) the renderers will be able to handle ref tags on route relations. At that point, the documentation can be updated to note that applying ref tags to ways is deprecated (at least for routes, which AFAIK is the only current use of ref tags on ways). Only then do ref tags on ways becomes *extraneous* as well as redundant, and they can reasonably be removed. And at that time I’ll be happy to be among the first to start deleting them. Fix the renderers first. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote: First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references of *routes*, not of *ways*. [snip] You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references of *streets*, not of *ways*”. I could, and I have, actually. So just like applying a name= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the street named foo”, we must apply a ref= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the route with reference foo” in order to get it to show up on the map. It’s what we’ve got for now; until we have something better we have to live with it. In terms of routes, we do have something better. Route relations. There are also street relations, but so far they are only proposed. Fix the renderers first. Don't tag for the renderer. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Don't tag for the renderer. Don't tag *incorrectly* for the renderer. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Don't tag for the renderer. Don't tag *incorrectly* for the renderer. Exactly! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 02:06 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote: First of all, the ref tags aren't valid. The numbers are references of *routes*, not of *ways*. [snip] You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references of *streets*, not of *ways*”. I could, and I have, actually. And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go. Same for ref tags. until we have something better we have to live with it. In terms of routes, we do have something better. Route relations. We don’t have something better. We have the *start* of something better. Fix the renderers first. Don't tag for the renderer. That’s not tagging for the renderer. “Tagging for the renderer” would be if I wanted my fenceline to show up as a blue line at a low zoom level, so I might it highway=motorway. That’s wrong. Tagging something accurately, but also applying something which is not your pet schema, is not wrong, and is not “tagging for the renderer”. No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead, and stop using the current system. —Alex Mauer “hawke”. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/18/2010 09:53 PM, Peter Budny wrote: Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com writes: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work. And as renderers can only handle ways for now… This is a data project, not a renderer project. It’s actually kinda both. Without the renderers, the data is useless (at least for making a map—analysis is still useful) If the renderers aren't doing the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing. +1 +1 from me as well. Continuing to use ref= tags at all when we have relations that represent a much cleaner way to tag roads is a terrible case of tagging for the renderer. I think it's premature to remove ref tags, but I don't see any point in adding them to new ways, rather than just creating a relation. If you want them to actually appear on this map we’re making, you kind of need to add them to new ways until renderers support the new system. If you don’t care whether or not they appear on the map, what’s the point of adding them? —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go. I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until you have the names in the relations. At the point where you do, sure, they should be removed. The idea that no one will ever create a renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous. It would be trivial to write a preparser to take the names from the street relations and stick them on the ways, which could then be fed right back into a stupid renderer that knows nothing about relations. This wouldn't be a particularly good solution, but it'd get you back to where you were tagging the ways (with the improvement that the tags for a single route would be consistent), and it could be written in a couple hours, probably much less by anyone who knows anything about how the renderer works. No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead, and stop using the current system. What about the route relation needs to be improved? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go. I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until you have the names in the relations. At the point where you do, sure, they should be removed. The idea that no one will ever create a renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous. Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the present, using the tools we have now. It would be trivial to write a preparser snip explanation Sounds good. Why hasn’t it been done, then? No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead, and stop using the current system. What about the route relation needs to be improved? Renderer support, and a decision about how to handle mixed dual/single-carriageway roads. Should it be one relation per direction plus a super-relation, or one relation with roles? In either case, validator support needs improvement. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/19/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors). But I also don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go. I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until you have the names in the relations. At the point where you do, sure, they should be removed. The idea that no one will ever create a renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous. Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the present, using the tools we have now. That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in trying to do that. There are much better places for me to get maps in the present. OSM, to me at least, is about the data, and how it can be used in the future. Especially in the United States. It would be trivial to write a preparser snip explanation Sounds good. Why hasn’t it been done, then? Because it's unnecessary, because no one has removed the ref tags from the ways. It's also more difficult to write the preparser when you have contradictory information on the ways. Part of the process of removing the information from the ways would be to reconcile inconsistencies and decide which of the two pieces of information is correct and which is incorrect. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
So to get back to the basics of this thread... I think we can all agree that we should (and are) using relations to represent highway routes and that we need to get renderer support for route relations ASAP. So then the question is what tags to use on relations. From what I have seen in the wiki and from most people around here, the accepted convention is as follows. For example, Kansas highway 18: type = route route = road network = US:KS ref = 18 (optional?) symbol=* tag I haven't messed with any US highways. I believe I saw someone suggest US:US for the network? And interstates seem to be US:I Yes/No? There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley If this information is accurate then renderers can decide if they want a dash or a shield or what have you. That is not a concern of the mapper. I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a couple of times - for example name=KS 18 The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it. What to do with ref=* tags on individual ways is a separate discussion. Let's focus on getting a concrete system in place that we can go beat the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as a US community come out with a solid plan and say we need this now people will listen. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote: Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the present, using the tools we have now. That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in trying to do that. …you may want to consider some other project, then. It would be trivial to write a preparsersnip explanation Sounds good. Why hasn’t it been done, then? Because it's unnecessary, because no one has removed the ref tags from the ways. Sure, it’s unnecessary…unless you want people to stop applying the ref tags to ways. It's also more difficult to write the preparser when you have contradictory information on the ways. Part of the process of removing the information from the ways would be to reconcile inconsistencies and decide which of the two pieces of information is correct and which is incorrect. Not necessary. Use the route relation and ignore the way ref data. Or if you’re particularly ambitious, just combine the two, ignoring duplicates and you’re good. So a way which was tagged WI-66 and a member of a relation tagged with network=US:WI + ref=66 would end up with two final-rendering ref values (One WI-66, one US:WI 66). It’s not the end of the world, and I am quite certain that it’d get fixed PDQ. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 03:27 PM, Toby Murray wrote: So to get back to the basics of this thread... I think we can all agree that we should (and are) using relations to represent highway routes and that we need to get renderer support for route relations ASAP. +1 So then the question is what tags to use on relations. All documented long ago at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route (especially http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Tags ) There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley Yup, there’s debate about that. I’d prefer something like US:KS:CTH or US:KS:COUNTY. Or even US:KS:CR, though I don’t like the two-character code as it looks just like a state abbreviation. IMO, connecting the road to the county should be done with a relation (super-relation actually) between the route and the boundary of the applicable county. I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a couple of times - for example name=KS 18 It is incorrect on a route relation unless it does have a name, like “The Joe Q. Bloggs Memorial Parkway” or something like that. The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it. Exactly. The tools should be improved. The interface for relations in josm (not sure about potlatch) is atrocious. Let's focus on getting a concrete system in place that we can go beat the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as a US community come out with a solid plan and say we need this now people will listen. We’ve had one for a long time. What’s needed is for someone to do the hard (“trivial” as Anthony would say) work of actually making use of the plan. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com writes: For example, Kansas highway 18: type = route route = road network = US:KS ref = 18 (optional?) symbol=* tag Also an optional wikipedia link. There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley +1 The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two county roads apart which use the same number. (Analogously, you wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?) I don't see any advantage to abbreviating the county name... that just seems like more effort for mappers, with no real payback. (I certainly don't know abbreviations for all 159 counties in Georgia.) I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a couple of times - for example name=KS 18 The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it. Well, the question is, does the name apply to the whole route? For basic cases, you might have name=Interstate 75 or name=U.S. Route 41. For KY-555 you might have name=Kentucky Route 555 and loc_name=Triple 5 Highway. However, there are many stretches of road that are designated Col. John Q Public Memorial Highway or something like that. It only applies to part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a bridge or an intersection). In that case, it belongs on the ways, not the route. So, there seems to be utility for both. The question is, what happens when both a way and a relation have name= set, and they don't match? -- Peter Budny \ Georgia Tech \ CS PhD student \ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/19/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote: Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the present, using the tools we have now. That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in trying to do that. …you may want to consider some other project, then. What project would you recommend? I'm looking for a project that creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. Not one that makes maps in the present, using the tools we have now. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote: What project would you recommend? I'm looking for a project that creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. Not one that makes maps in the present, using the tools we have now. Well, presumably you’d want to start your own. That way it can always be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools that you have in the present. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote: What project would you recommend? I'm looking for a project that creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. Not one that makes maps in the present, using the tools we have now. Well, presumably you’d want to start your own. That way it can always be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools that you have in the present. Can we stop biting each other in the ass and switch back to having a civil conversation? We're all in the same project working towards the same goal. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote: What project would you recommend? I'm looking for a project that creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to anyone who wants them. Not one that makes maps in the present, using the tools we have now. Well, presumably you’d want to start your own. That way it can always be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools that you have in the present. What would be the point of that? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Peter Budny pet...@gatech.edu wrote: Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com writes: For example, Kansas highway 18: type = route route = road network = US:KS ref = 18 (optional?) symbol=* tag Also an optional wikipedia link. There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley +1 As I've mentioned further up this thread we need a way to specify what sort of route it is. There's no easy way to determine if it's a US/State/County route from the proposed set of tags. [...snip...] So, there seems to be utility for both. The question is, what happens when both a way and a relation have name= set, and they don't match? For the most part, I doubt route relations will be used for rendering names (only shields), so I don't know that we should worry about the name too much. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Do City Labels look funny to you?
Tom Hughes, OSM contributor and infrastructure guru has written an interesting summary of why some part of OSM can look strange. http://compton.nu/2010/10/city-labels-in-openstreetmap/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Do City Labels look funny to you?
Tom Hughes, OSM contributor and infrastructure guru has written an interesting summary of why some part of OSM can look strange. http://compton.nu/2010/10/city-labels-in-openstreetmap/ Sounds like a good project for a bot to correct to the OSM norm? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Do City Labels look funny to you?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: Tom Hughes, OSM contributor and infrastructure guru has written an interesting summary of why some part of OSM can look strange. http://compton.nu/2010/10/city-labels-in-openstreetmap/ Sounds like a good project for a bot to correct to the OSM norm? On the contrary: I say all these critiques indicate the need for a US-specific rendering of the map that does things in a more United States-ey way. - Non-rectangular highway shields - Colors that are closer to what most other US road maps - More granular city name placement based closer on population than on the place tag - Support for route relations ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote: For example, Kansas highway 18: type = route route = road network = US:KS ref = 18 (optional?) symbol=* tag Also an optional wikipedia link. There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably throw my vote in with something like network=US:KS:Riley The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two county roads apart which use the same number. (Analogously, you wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?) A relation with the boundary relation. This could be done with US:STATE as well, but I think the use of the postal abbreviation for states is well-established while this is not the case for counties. You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed in once place. (I know linking to such things is a little iffy though) I don't see any advantage to abbreviating the county name... that just seems like more effort for mappers, with no real payback. (I certainly don't know abbreviations for all 159 counties in Georgia.) +1. However, there are many stretches of road that are designated Col. John Q Public Memorial Highway or something like that. It only applies to part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a bridge or an intersection). In that case, it belongs on the ways, not the route. Yup, or on another route relation. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Do City Labels look funny to you?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: - Support for route relations Why should this be US-specific? Canada certainly has the same sort of route system as the US, and many European countries have signed overlaps, at least of E-routes and nationally-numbered routes. I think I've mentioned in this thread that osm2pgsql already creates geometries from route relations so when I said Support for route relations I meant Add Mapnik rules so that route relations are rendered. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 05:24 PM, Peter Budny wrote: Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net writes: You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed in once place. (I know linking to such things is a little iffy though) I'd support this, too... for generic shields that look like put numbers inside an outline of the state we could do this, and then handle the exceptions as such, but I'd be quite happy right now just to have ordinary symbol= tags rendered. There was (is) some work done (I think by JohnSmith) to get this sort of thing done. Wikipedia has some blank SVGs with placeholder digits which can be substituted; it’s not hard at all with the appropriate fonts to make that bit work, or to modify an existing numbered SVG. Only problem is that you generally need a different sign for 3-digit vs. 2-digit signs (and sometimes 1-digit signs as well). However, there are many stretches of road that are designated Col. John Q Public Memorial Highway or something like that. It only applies to part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a bridge or an intersection). In that case, it belongs on the ways, not the route. Yup, or on another route relation. What, so make the route relation contain sub-relations for each distinct stretch of road, recursively, until it gets down to single ways that can't be combined (e.g. due to different bridge/tunnel tags, speed limits, etc)? It could be done that way, but I was thinking of a more single-level approach: route network=US:I/ ref=XX/ members way1/ way2/ way3/ way4/ way5/ way6/ /members /route route name=John Q. Public Memorial Highway/ members way3/ way4/ /members /route route name=Joe Bloggs Interchange/ note=interchange between I-XX and I-YY/ members way5/ way6/ way7/ way8/ /members /route ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On 10/19/2010 04:11 PM, Anthony wrote: Well, presumably you’d want to start your own. That way it can always be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools that you have in the present. What would be the point of that? I don’t know, it’s what you seem to want to do. I’ll take Ian’s advice and stop here. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Do City Labels look funny to you?
On 10/19/2010 05:00 PM, Ian Dees wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net mailto:nice...@att.net wrote: Tom Hughes, OSM contributor and infrastructure guru has written an interesting summary of why some part of OSM can look strange. http://compton.nu/2010/10/city-labels-in-openstreetmap/ Sounds like a good project for a bot to correct to the OSM norm? On the contrary: I say all these critiques indicate the need for a US-specific rendering of the map that does things in a more United States-ey way. - Non-rectangular highway shields This benefits more than just the US. Mexico and Canada also have non-rectangular shields. - Colors that are closer to what most other US road maps I do appreciate the depth of detail of the OS-style coloring Mapnik provides at-a-glance; even the USGS maps leave a lot to be desired if you're not driving a car. Ideally, OSM would be substantially less mode-dependent. - More granular city name placement based closer on population than on the place tag Ideally, we should be moving away from city centroids for tagging and go with outlines anyway. - Support for route relations I doubt this is a US-specific problem; doesn't the UK have this going ad nauseum with the Sustrans NCN already? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] how to tag US townships?
ok, I got a question tagging admin area / populated centers / labels in USA seems to come down to two main tags: admin_level and place http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries plus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Place I've ran into a problem recently fixing up my area, where either the TIGER import, or inexperienced contributors have/are mis-tagging townships as being, in some way, more important / more visible than Cities or Towns. Before I go further, If you aren't sure exactly what a Township is in the US, please read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29 In rural PA (Lancaster) I am specifically dealing with a buttload of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29#Civil_townships From personal experience, the best I can equate them to is neighbourhoods or in-town areas in england. West Lampeter is to Lancaster as Tarpots is 918 years ago) to South Benfleet, or the Sea-front in Southend. The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb thx Ant ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Do City Labels look funny to you?
On 10/19/2010 05:09 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ian Dees ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote: - Support for route relations Why should this be US-specific? Canada certainly has the same sort of route system as the US, That was an amazingly ignorant thing to say. Canada has no national highways and nothing even remotely close to the Interstate network. They're all maintained, designed and numbered by the individual provinces, even within the Trans-Canada system, and very few freeways cross between provinces. Route numbers in BC, for example, are sequential save for 99; in Ontario, they're all three-digit and the first digit indicates the type of route; and in Quebec, the numbering and design considerations have more in common with mainland France than anything else in North America. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in trying to do that. There are much better places for me to get maps in the present. OSM, to me at least, is about the data, and how it can be used in the future. Especially in the United States. Keep in mind that there are already people using US OSM data in real applications.By all means, let's move forward, but not burn consumers by removing ref* or name* tags to force them to change. Otherwise we will just be laboring like monks to produce a mountain of pure XML that no one cares about because it's to difficult to catch a moving specification that has no concern for compatibility. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb Use place=township anyway; you shouldn't tag incorrectly to make something render well. admin_level=8 would be correct, since it's a city-level division. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote: Keep in mind that there are already people using US OSM data in real applications. Where? Cloudmade developers, who sell smartphone apps that use Cloudmade tiles and routing data, and can provide turn by turn directions. For example, the iPhone paid 'offmaps' app, which offers US coverage. There's Skobbler, whose 'Skobbler US' navigation app for the iPhone is the #1 free US nav app, and the #18 free app overall for the iPhone in the US. I believe they process their own planet data, and probably don't follow the US OSM talk list.I use it and am mostly surprised when it works well in areas that I've never touched. And MapQuest is looking at US data and processing it (even though you could argue that no one uses it yet) - it would be a courtesy to their devs to get a notice from the community that something will change rather than their renderer just start churning out blank maps because the data no longer makes sense. By all means, let's move forward, but not burn consumers by removing ref* or name* tags to force them to change. Otherwise we will just be laboring like monks to produce a mountain of pure XML that no one cares about because it's to difficult to catch a moving specification that has no concern for compatibility. For now, if people don't want the spec to change, they shouldn't download new planet files. If that becomes a big enough problem (one of the reasons I'd like to know who it is that's using the data), then the solution is to offer stable branches, not to stop the development of anything that might break backward compatibility. Many changes can be implemented with an announce and transition period. Telling Skobbler to stop downloading the planet because they want a spec they can follow (and work with the Apple app store 3 month release cycle) is not realistic.We no longer are working with a clean sheet of paper. We can move forward, but just need to consider those using the data. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] how to tag US townships?
Aren't admin_level and place getting at slightly different things? admin_level is to mark official political/legal boundaries. place is to mark a...well...place that has a name, and the place=city|town|village|hamlet does not necessarily align with the type of government (if any) of the place. From the place page: In most Western countries, the status of a location (whether it is a city/town/etc.), is decided by the government, and is not a function of size. ***But most OSM communities of those countries have made a convention to use the population to decide which place tag to use, to ensure a more common way of tagging across the globe, and not to end up with cities of 1000 residents for example.*** Just like the term township that Ant linked to, the same word can have different meanings in different contexts. Brad On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Antony Pegg anttheli...@gmail.com wrote: ok, I got a question tagging admin area / populated centers / labels in USA seems to come down to two main tags: admin_level and place http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#10_admin_level_values_for_specific_countries plus http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Place I've ran into a problem recently fixing up my area, where either the TIGER import, or inexperienced contributors have/are mis-tagging townships as being, in some way, more important / more visible than Cities or Towns. Before I go further, If you aren't sure exactly what a Township is in the US, please read this first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29 In rural PA (Lancaster) I am specifically dealing with a buttload of these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Township_%28United_States%29#Civil_townships From personal experience, the best I can equate them to is neighbourhoods or in-town areas in england. West Lampeter is to Lancaster as Tarpots is 918 years ago) to South Benfleet, or the Sea-front in Southend. The problem is that currently we dont have a discrete tag for place=township and all admin_level= are =8 so, half a question, half a statement of intent, unless someone argues me down from the ledge... I'm going to start using place=suburb for townships as the closest comparison I can find http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dsuburb thx Ant ___ Tagging mailing list tagg...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
