Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
At 2011-08-20 09:46, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote: It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for all routes makes the most sense. My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60: 1) network=US:CA + ref=60 2) ref=CA 60 the second one, being older, is what we've used for the most part. So how do you distinguish California from Canada? Or Delaware from Germany? Assume that, lacking a network tag, the ref tag is composed of state # or I # or US #. In other countries, they presumably also have adopted their own standards for the format of the ref tag. And do you support putting an abbreviation of the county name in the ref tag for a county route? Or are those fine with the ambiguous CR? I don't think CR is ambiguous, since there is no state by that name. I also favor (and use) adding the network=US:state:county to these. I know that in California, the county roads are actually unique throughout the state, so the county is not required, but it is present on the signage, so I make note of it in this way. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
At 2011-08-20 12:34, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 8/20/2011 3:29 PM, Val Kartchner wrote: Because some states officially designate the road as SR-26, for instance. I'd say most states do. That doesn't mean, though, we have to copy it. The SR is assumed. Not to mention states like Texas, which have, for example: State Highway (SH) 121 Loop 12 Spur 408 Beltway 8 Farm to Market Road (FM) 1960 Park Road (PR) 27 and probably a few more types. It seems like each state has a State Route / State Highway class of road, and a ton of existing tagging with the aforementioned: network=US:ST ref=# or ref=ST # For FM 1960, I'd use: network=US:TX ref=FM 1960 or ref=TX FM 1960 These should require no extra work in parsing - the additional class just becomes part of the route # for display. If a particular renderer has the right shields for these classes in each state, it can parse out the route class. Standard abbreviations for the route classes should be listed in the wiki page for the particular state highway tagging. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
Op 21 aug. 2011, om 15:21 heeft Alan Mintz het volgende geschreven: My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60: 1) network=US:CA + ref=60 2) ref=CA 60 Reminds me: there are two ref-tags. One on the relation, one on the way. The suggestion of Alan would fit both: 1 being the standard for the relation, 2 being the standard for the way. A suggestion: - On relations we have a seperate network tag which contains US:[state]:[county]. Whereas state and county are only used if applicable. The ref-tag in the relation only contains the number. - On the way for State Highways the [state] [number] is used. When the road is part of multiple routes, the main route is used. That could be: ** a higher classification prevails (US over state) ** the continuous route prevails (if route x uses part of route y to get to it's next section, then route y is used). ** the number closed to 0 prevails ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
At 2011-08-21 06:56, Henk Hoff wrote: A suggestion: - ... When the road is part of multiple routes, the main route is used. That could be: ** a higher classification prevails (US over state) ** the continuous route prevails (if route x uses part of route y to get to it's next section, then route y is used). ** the number closed to 0 prevails I disagree. The semi-colon delimiter should be used. I doubt people could remember which rule to apply, and I don't agree it should be applied anyway, as for any particular roadway, the name by which it is colloquially known is inconsistent. CA example: I-215 shares routing with SR-60 for a few miles. People in the area still consider it SR-60. It is tagged ref=CA 60;I 215. SR-79 shares routing with I-15 for a few miles. People in the area still consider it I-15. It is tagged ref=I 15;CA 79. These actually conform with the second rule above (and the third, but that's entirely coincidental), but I'm sure I can find counter-examples. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On 8/21/2011 1:57 PM, Henk Hoff wrote: Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea. Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is the way we do things. If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to armchair-map (most countries don't have route overlaps). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60: 1) network=US:CA + ref=60 2) ref=CA 60 SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The network tag won't work here, since it needs to be both US:I and US:CA. Not a problem. This has been solved. 1) for simple network ways, tag the way simply and correctly. 2) for overlaps / concurrencies, tag each relation simply and correctly. 3) that's all Don't try to force overlaps into multi-value tags that are difficult to maintain and consume. Tag each relation correctly, with one unambiguous network tag and one unambiguous (simple) ref. network = US_CA or even US_CA_SR ref = 60 The network tag describes the network completely. The ref tag gives the simple reference within that network. Putting anything else into the ref tag, like SR, CR, business, or other modifiers that belong in the network tag, makes handling ref a nightmare of special cases. If you like default-mapnik lozenge-shields with (CR 123) printed within the lozenge, this can be done unambiguously from information in network. If you want automatic rendering of proper highway shields, and highway concurrencies / shield overlaps, then all you have to do is get the ref and network right. And attend my upcoming talk Shields Up! at SotM - Denver for the details. As a super-secret, not for dissemination on public mailing lists, teaser, here is what a quad concurrency looks like. Rendered automatically. Don't tell anybody. This is just between us, okay? http://rweait.dev.openstreetmap.org/overlaps.png Do the tags simply and correctly, and I can abandon all of the nonsense, hacky, special case, preprocessing code, and actually deploy this in a way that will work and be maintainable. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
At 2011-08-21 10:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60: 1) network=US:CA + ref=60 2) ref=CA 60 SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The network tag won't work here, since it needs to be both US:I and US:CA. Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object. ref=CA 60;I 215 or network=US:CA;US:I ref=60;215 -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object. ref=CA 60;I 215 or network=US:CA;US:I ref=60;215 Difficult to maintain for mappers and harder to consume for use. Use simply tagged relations for each route. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net wrote: Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object. ref=CA 60;I 215 or network=US:CA;US:I ref=60;215 Difficult to maintain for mappers and harder to consume for use. Use simply tagged relations for each route. OK... we're still talking about network tags on ways. The network tag IS NOT USED ON WAYS. Like...at all. There are 317 occurrences in the same data I used before. (all ways with a ref tag) Out of those 317 uses a lot of them are rcn and nwn which have nothing to do with highways. So don't use a network tag on ways. As Richard says, they go on relations and on relations the network tag is pretty simple. No multiple values, no complications. Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
At 2011-08-21 10:57, Henk Hoff wrote: For every rule we can find exceptions. In this case, I will guess the exceptions (shared routes) are less than 5% of the ways. The basic idea behind the decision-tree was: use the most important / most logical route for the way-ref tag. If you know the important one, make it the first value in the series. Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea. Why? I guess that 95% have only one, 4% have two, and the remaining 1% might have more (I seem to remember seeing 4 in the midwest somewhere). Remember we're only talking about the road routes themselves. Bike routes, etc. go in their own tags. If you want to identify a whole route, use a relation. Based on the relations (a way is part of) a routing engine could then identify under which other route numbers this road is also known by. As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design, it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we need the duplication and the problems that go with it. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design, it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we need the duplication and the problems that go with it. It's also true that relations break very easily. Serge put it better than I could: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008199.html I proposed a solution: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008204.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
For starters, this is a more constructive response than the go away. Thanks. There is a ref-tag on a way and a ref-tag in the relation. Although they are both called ref, that does not directly mean they're the same. My suggestion: use the way-ref for the most important one. If you want to know to which other routes the way is also part of: look at the relations the way is part of. Op 21 aug. 2011, om 20:22 heeft Alan Mintz het volgende geschreven: At 2011-08-21 10:57, Henk Hoff wrote: For every rule we can find exceptions. In this case, I will guess the exceptions (shared routes) are less than 5% of the ways. The basic idea behind the decision-tree was: use the most important / most logical route for the way-ref tag. If you know the important one, make it the first value in the series. Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea. Why? I guess that 95% have only one, 4% have two, and the remaining 1% might have more (I seem to remember seeing 4 in the midwest somewhere). Remember we're only talking about the road routes themselves. Bike routes, etc. go in their own tags. If you want to identify a whole route, use a relation. Based on the relations (a way is part of) a routing engine could then identify under which other route numbers this road is also known by. As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design, it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we need the duplication and the problems that go with it. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
I think one route tag as a primary would work in NH as the DOT uses primary routes on mile markers for the freeways. Relations can handle showing the other routes. Andrew Andrew S. Sawyer Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:47:26 To: Alan Mintzalan_mintz+...@earthlink.net Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways For starters, this is a more constructive response than the go away. Thanks. There is a ref-tag on a way and a ref-tag in the relation. Although they are both called ref, that does not directly mean they're the same. My suggestion: use the way-ref for the most important one. If you want to know to which other routes the way is also part of: look at the relations the way is part of. Op 21 aug. 2011, om 20:22 heeft Alan Mintz het volgende geschreven: At 2011-08-21 10:57, Henk Hoff wrote: For every rule we can find exceptions. In this case, I will guess the exceptions (shared routes) are less than 5% of the ways. The basic idea behind the decision-tree was: use the most important / most logical route for the way-ref tag. If you know the important one, make it the first value in the series. Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea. Why? I guess that 95% have only one, 4% have two, and the remaining 1% might have more (I seem to remember seeing 4 in the midwest somewhere). Remember we're only talking about the road routes themselves. Bike routes, etc. go in their own tags. If you want to identify a whole route, use a relation. Based on the relations (a way is part of) a routing engine could then identify under which other route numbers this road is also known by. As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design, it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we need the duplication and the problems that go with it. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Aug 21, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to armchair-map That's a little harsh. Where do you live now? New Jersey? Florida? Portland? L.A.? I can't keep track, but you sure get around to read a lot of signage. - Alan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote: As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design, it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we need the duplication and the problems that go with it. It's also true that relations break very easily. Serge put it better than I could: http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/pipermail/tagging/2011-** August/008199.htmlhttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008199.html I proposed a solution: http://lists.openstreetmap.** org/pipermail/tagging/2011-**August/008204.html http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-August/008204.html I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously I don't get around as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a specific case where a relation breaks over the course of normal editing? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote: On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote: I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously I don't get around as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a specific case where a relation breaks over the course of normal editing? My reply to this has been rejected twice for no reason. I guess I can't give a specific case... No worries, Nathan. I got two replies. I was poking through the relations in the list and didn't see any that were particularly broken, but maybe I didn't look too hard. I guess my point was that I don't think relations are as brittle as you claim. JOSM at least does a fairly decent job dealing with relations when you break a way in pieces, for example. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
Sent again; sorry to people who receive multiple copies due to moderation. On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote: I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously I don't get around as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a specific case where a relation breaks over the course of normal editing? The real problem is that there's no way to show the former state of a relation, and I tend to fix errors whenever I find them. I know I've recently fixed US 10 in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, mostly where it overlaps with Interstates. If you're better than me at figuring out the history, see: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5247114 The most common problem I see is when someone splits a way to create a bridge, and for whatever reason the newly-created ways aren't part of the relation. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
