Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-19 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 10:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:

> route=road relations provide a way to group all the individual
> segments of a numbered route into a coherent whole, and allow for
> better handling of things like the choice of highway shield and the
> handling of concurrencies (where two numbered routes run along the
> same roadway).

  Interesting, this answers something I've wondered about. Sometimes I
see ways in data that you can tell the GPS signal dropped, those I just
connect. I'm mapping locally, so have a sense of when that's
appropriate, and can drive there to validate. When the metadata changes
sometimes in the segments, those have to be separate to preserve that.
For us that's often where you park the fire truck and get the UTV
going... Anyway, as a long term solution, route=road seems the way to go
after I get all the data cleaned up.

> For your example, the 'ref' on the way would be 'CR2;FS 729.2B'. The
> way would be a member of two route relations, one for the county road
> and one for the Forest Service route.

 If I ever got around to adding all these relations, it might improve
search. A big task unfortunately. There are other issues with how search
works in OsmAnd, that's a different email list. :-)

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Andrew Davidson
On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 1:45 AM Julien djakk 
wrote:

>
> If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;” separator
>
>
Name tags with ";" in them get flagged as a problem to fix by validators.

If there are more than one alternative names for something I use alt_name=*
alt_name:1=* etc.  Nominatim will consume names in the alt_name:* space so
they'll be searchable.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
I would have expected tracktype=grade2 for a gravel road. Is it common to
use grade1 in that area for very well built, quality gravel roads?

Joseph

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:11 PM Johnparis  wrote:

> Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space is
> an alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is normally a
> local consensus on space-versus-no space, and as others have mentioned,
> it's up to you.
>
> The problem with space-vs-no space arises particularly with refs, which
> are searchable. If you include the space for refs of national routes in
> Morocco, someone will remove it; if you omit it in Algeria, someone will
> add it. There are some advantages to consistency within a given area, and
> the tagging consensus will be documented (hopefully) on the wiki or the
> local mailing list (as is the case for the national routes I cited). "Paint
> the label" is fine in general but there can be other considerations (signs,
> as you know, aren't always correct).
>
> Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space. Kevin
> Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the consensus on the tag
> name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have
> ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a bit
> much to swallow ...
>
> You can see the tagging on the Court Street example he cites here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45759030
>
> Here's a Colorado national forest highway with a nearby CR:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17062214#map=14/38.8684/-107.1015
>
> The tags look reasonable to me:
>
> highway=unclassified
> name=Lake Irwin Road 826
> ref=FS-826
> source=Gunnison County GIS data, USFS, Bing
> surface=gravel
> tracktype=grade1
>
> ... except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a hyphen
> in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use semicolons (not
> commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:28 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/08/19 05:16, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye  wrote:
>>
>>>   So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
>>> to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ?
>>>
>>
>> My opinion is "paint the label."  Others disagree.  Make up your own mind
>> which
>> is better.
>>
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> The mapper is in charge of what goes into OSM. They should map what they
>> see, not conform to some 'rule' of 'no spaces' etc etc. Map the truth.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 11:30 PM Rob Savoye  wrote:
> > Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space.
> > Kevin Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the
> > consensus on the tag name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have
> > ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a
> > bit much to swallow ...
>
>   Yeah, maybe too verbose. :-) I can tell which forest it's in by
> checking the boundary. I haven't seen that long tag actually used, at
> least not here in Colorado. I think 'ref:usfs' works fine.

No, I was talking about the network name in a route=road relation.

route=road relations provide a way to group all the individual
segments of a numbered route into a coherent whole, and allow for
better handling of things like the choice of highway shield and the
handling of concurrencies (where two numbered routes run along the
same roadway).

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3109478 is an example that I
was just editing this evening.  It has a lot of individual roadways,
and the presence of the relation allows them to be worked on as a
group, listed end to end, have mileage tables produced, and so on.

On the route relation the reference is just '159'.  The 'network' is 'US:NY'.

The 'ref' appears on the individual ways as 'NY 159'.

A county road needs to identify the county as well as the state in its
'network', so with https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3122269
you'll see that the 'ref' is still just '88' but the 'network' is
'US:NY:Schenectady'.  Since different counties use different shields,
'CR' wouldn't be enough to determine what shield to use in rendering.
The 'ref' on the way is still 'CR 88'.

For USFS roads, the numbers can be reused between forests, or so I
understand, so the complex string for the 'network' is used to make
sure that there's something unique about the route.  'FS 12345' wouid
be a perfectly good 'ref' on the way,  but doesn't give you the other
advantages of route relations.

For your example, the 'ref' on the way would be 'CR2;FS 729.2B'. The
way would be a member of two route relations, one for the county road
and one for the Forest Service route.

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:24 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> F Street and 1st Street (usually written out as First Street, though
> this depends on the local standards) are a common name, which goes in
> the name field.
>

It can also be regionally dependent.  Oklahoma got a lot of "East 820 Road"
type names, but in reality it should be ref=CR E820 instead.   TIGER is the
most notorious source for this bogosity, and the counties themselves aren't
super consistent themselves, so you'll see some with the five point blue
county signs, some that use standard street blades and list the road
numbers, and some that literally paint the route numbers on the pavement at
each intersection, regional knowledge is required to get the context right,
especially since you'll get some that TIGER imported with like:

name=East 820 Road
name_1=Cemetery Road
name_2=River Road.

Rearrange the multiple values randomly.  It's pretty obvious to tell which
is going to be the county road number.  Which name it is gets a little
tricker; sometimes it was originally one then it changed to another,
sometimes it's none of those besides the county road number, sometimes it's
the county road number and another, fourth value for the name from a more
recent renaming.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 9:09 PM, Johnparis wrote:
> Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space
> is an alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is

  I just read too much into example of 'CR2'... I'm just trying to get
it right, so routing works better. I prefer the space as it's easier to
read...

> The problem with space-vs-no space arises particularly with refs,
> which are searchable. If you include the space for refs of national
> routes in Morocco, someone will remove it; if you omit it in Algeria,
> someone will add it. There are some advantages to consistency within
> a given area,

  Many of the existing USFS roads in OSM in this area use 'alt_name',
which doesn't seem to get used for routing, while the ref* ones do. I'm
a huge fan of consistency, since it makes it easier to parse data and
render when I'm making maps.

> Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space.
> Kevin Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the
> consensus on the tag name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have 
> ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a
> bit much to swallow ...

  Yeah, maybe too verbose. :-) I can tell which forest it's in by
checking the boundary. I haven't seen that long tag actually used, at
least not here in Colorado. I think 'ref:usfs' works fine.

> ... except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a 
> hyphen in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use
> semicolons (not commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.

  I'm noticing many of the existing roads in OSM in the area I'm working
on do use the hyphen. As I add and validate the metadata, I am changing
that to a space. The boring janitor work is worth is in the long run.

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
F Street and 1st Street (usually written out as First Street, though
this depends on the local standards) are a common name, which goes in
the name field.

1st Street might also be part of County Road (CR) #312, which would be
ref=CR 312 or =CR312 or similar. The idea is that most people locally
would refer to their address as on "F Street" or "First Street" in
conversation, but the ref is still useful for navigation if it's
placed on signs in addition to the local name.

Some roads only have a name like (California) State Highway 99, which
is used by the locals as their house or business street address, so in
that case you can use both name=Highway 99 (or whatever the most
common signs and addresses say) in addition to ref=CA 99 or similar.

On 8/19/19, brad  wrote:
> So is F street, or 1st street a name or a ref?
>
> On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> It looks like "CR 2" is a "ref" rather than a name, and so is FS
>> 729.2B. A ref=, short for "reference number" (or more properly
>> "reference alphanumeric string") is a set of letters and numbers that
>> identifies a feature.
>>
>> While it's best to have the common name in the tag name=, like
>> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road, it's okay to have more than one ref in the
>> tag ref, separated by semicolons. Many database users can handle this.
>> Eg:
>>
>> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
>> ref=CR 2;FS 729.2B
>>
>> If there are other, less common actual names, consider using
>> alt_name=* or loc_name=* (local, informal names), but in this case it
>> looks like there is just one name, but multiple reference numbers.
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> On 8/19/19, Rob Savoye  wrote:
>>> On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
>>>
 Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that
 springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is
>>>Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
>>> sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
>>> different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
>>> USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.
>>>
 name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
 Gulch Road; FS 729.2B
 If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
 separator
>>>Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
>>> The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
>>> names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
>>> in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
>>> data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
>>> map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...
>>>
>>> - rob -
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread brad

So is F street, or 1st street a name or a ref?

On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

It looks like "CR 2" is a "ref" rather than a name, and so is FS
729.2B. A ref=, short for "reference number" (or more properly
"reference alphanumeric string") is a set of letters and numbers that
identifies a feature.

While it's best to have the common name in the tag name=, like
name=Corkscrew Gulch Road, it's okay to have more than one ref in the
tag ref, separated by semicolons. Many database users can handle this.
Eg:

name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
ref=CR 2;FS 729.2B

If there are other, less common actual names, consider using
alt_name=* or loc_name=* (local, informal names), but in this case it
looks like there is just one name, but multiple reference numbers.

Joseph

On 8/19/19, Rob Savoye  wrote:

On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:


Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that
springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is

   Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.


name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
Gulch Road; FS 729.2B
If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
separator

   Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...

- rob -

___
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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Johnparis
Don't know how you deduced "no space?" from Martin's comment. A space is an
alphanumeric character. In any case, as I mentioned, there is normally a
local consensus on space-versus-no space, and as others have mentioned,
it's up to you.

The problem with space-vs-no space arises particularly with refs, which are
searchable. If you include the space for refs of national routes in
Morocco, someone will remove it; if you omit it in Algeria, someone will
add it. There are some advantages to consistency within a given area, and
the tagging consensus will be documented (hopefully) on the wiki or the
local mailing list (as is the case for the national routes I cited). "Paint
the label" is fine in general but there can be other considerations (signs,
as you know, aren't always correct).

Tag *names*, by contrast, use an underscore instead of a space. Kevin
Kenny's comment above indicates what appears to be the consensus on the tag
name(s) in the USA. So in theory you might have
ref:US:NFSR:Raggeds_Wilderness:NFH=FS 826. That seems to me to be a bit
much to swallow ...

You can see the tagging on the Court Street example he cites here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45759030

Here's a Colorado national forest highway with a nearby CR:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17062214#map=14/38.8684/-107.1015

The tags look reasonable to me:

highway=unclassified
name=Lake Irwin Road 826
ref=FS-826
source=Gunnison County GIS data, USFS, Bing
surface=gravel
tracktype=grade1

... except that, again, you might want to use a space instead of a hyphen
in the "ref" tag in this case, and normally you'd use semicolons (not
commas) as a separator in the "source" tag.






On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 12:28 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/08/19 05:16, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye  wrote:
>
>>   So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
>> to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ?
>>
>
> My opinion is "paint the label."  Others disagree.  Make up your own mind
> which
> is better.
>
>
> +1.
>
> The mapper is in charge of what goes into OSM. They should map what they
> see, not conform to some 'rule' of 'no spaces' etc etc. Map the truth.
>
>
> ___
> 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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 10:16 AM Rob Savoye  wrote:

>   Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. The
> county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate name
> everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many have a US
> Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B". I usually use the common
> name as the 'name' tag, and the USFS designation as the 'alt_name' tag.
> I kindof would like to include the county name as well. I do see a lot
> of roads use 'name_1', but that gets flagged often by validation. So my
> question is, how to I tag all three road names appropriately ?
>

refs aren't names, they're refs.  ref=CR 2 and ref=FS 729.2B are
appropriate.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Warin

On 19/08/19 05:16, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye > wrote:


  So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ?


My opinion is "paint the label."  Others disagree.  Make up your own 
mind which

is better.


+1.

The mapper is in charge of what goes into OSM. They should map what they 
see, not conform to some 'rule' of 'no spaces' etc etc. Map the truth.



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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Slightly off-topic: one of the posts mentioned that this road is tagged
highway=track.

However, if the road is the main access to a house, it should be
highway=unclassified. Or it could even be highway=tertiary since it is a
country road, if it connects to a number of houses or a hamlet or
place=village along the way.

But please add surface=unpaved or a more specific value.

Joseph

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 4:49 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 12:28 PM Richard Fairhurst 
> wrote:
> > Rob Savoye wrote:
> > > Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names.
> > > The county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate
> > > name everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many
> > > have a US Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B".
> >
> > name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
> > ref=CR 2
> > usfs:ref=FS 729.2B
> >
> > I think this holds even if the "county-designated name" is CR 2. The
> "name
> > everyone uses" tallies with OSM standard practice; the official
> reference is
> > what we have the ref tag for.
>
> If there are overlaid refs (and even if there aren't) it's better
> North American practice to create route relations for the numbered
> routes. That also lets the 'ref' be associated with a 'network', so
> that a more sophisticated renderer can get the shields right.  Note
> that 'CR' is NOT enough information for a shield - if you look at
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
> ,
> you'll see that Bergen County 3/89 have a style of shield distinct
> from Passaic County 677.
>
> Simple examples of concurrencies at
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=44.2134=-73.5966=15
> ,
> where Court Street is US 9 and NY 9N through the village, or
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
> where I-890 is concurrent with NY 7 for a couple of exits.
>
> Obviouisly, arbitrary combinations of network are possible, as at
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
> where NY 206 shares its roadway with first Sullivan County 179, then
> Sullivan County 91, then Delaware County 7, or
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
> ,
> where US 202 is concurrent with US 1A and Maine 9 on Main Street, and
> then concurrent with I-395 and Maine 15 on the freeway.
>
> It's best to avoid CR as the network in favour of a string like
> US:NY:Delaware. It's a bad assumption to guess that a renderer could
> deduce this from the borders of the administrative regions.  Nearly
> the whole of NY 120A is in Connecticut
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
> .
>
> Having the route available also helps sort out the directions in the
> signage, as where the eastbound direction of the bridge at
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
> is NY 30 North and NY 145 South.
>
> The recommended network for USFS numbered routes is US:NFSR:(name of
> the forest):NFH for a National Forest Highway, or US:NFSR:(name of the
> forest):NFR for a National Forest Road. If the renderer that I've been
> linking to in this message gets one of those (or just USFS for the
> network, but the same numbers can be reused many times, so it's better
> to have the forest included), it'll produce a shield that looks like
> https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20190818/nfsr2336.png.
>
> If a road has no name other than its ref, practices differ between
> putting in noname=yes, just leaving the name off, and giving it a name
> like 'State Highway 9'. I tend to prefer the last of these, since a
> renderer that doesn't have any fallback for ways without a name will
> still at least render something. I also don't disturb 'ref=*' on the
> way when I'm creating a route relation, but when doing rendering of
> shaped shields, I ignore 'ref=*' entirely on ways that participate in
> route relations.
>
> If possible, (borrowing from another thread), keep the ways in a route
> relation sorted. (If you or your editor can't do that, I'll cope, but
> it makes matters easier for data consumers.)
>
> These practices are seldom necessary in Europe, where route
> concurrencies are rare, and pictorial markers are not important. They
> are controversial for the rendering of the main map, because the
> requirement is specific to a single locale, and because it is foreseen
> to have an adverse impact on server operations when scaled up to
> planetary size with minutely updates. I work on the issue of route
> rendering off and on, but it's a hobby task so my progress is
> agonizingly slow.
>
> ___
> 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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Sun, Aug 18, 2019 at 12:28 PM Richard Fairhurst  wrote:
> Rob Savoye wrote:
> > Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names.
> > The county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate
> > name everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many
> > have a US Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B".
>
> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
> ref=CR 2
> usfs:ref=FS 729.2B
>
> I think this holds even if the "county-designated name" is CR 2. The "name
> everyone uses" tallies with OSM standard practice; the official reference is
> what we have the ref tag for.

If there are overlaid refs (and even if there aren't) it's better
North American practice to create route relations for the numbered
routes. That also lets the 'ref' be associated with a 'network', so
that a more sophisticated renderer can get the shields right.  Note
that 'CR' is NOT enough information for a shield - if you look at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14,
you'll see that Bergen County 3/89 have a style of shield distinct
from Passaic County 677.

Simple examples of concurrencies at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=44.2134=-73.5966=15,
where Court Street is US 9 and NY 9N through the village, or
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
where I-890 is concurrent with NY 7 for a couple of exits.

Obviouisly, arbitrary combinations of network are possible, as at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
where NY 206 shares its roadway with first Sullivan County 179, then
Sullivan County 91, then Delaware County 7, or
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14,
where US 202 is concurrent with US 1A and Maine 9 on Main Street, and
then concurrent with I-395 and Maine 15 on the freeway.

It's best to avoid CR as the network in favour of a string like
US:NY:Delaware. It's a bad assumption to guess that a renderer could
deduce this from the borders of the administrative regions.  Nearly
the whole of NY 120A is in Connecticut
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14.

Having the route available also helps sort out the directions in the
signage, as where the eastbound direction of the bridge at
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/catskills/test4.html?la=41.9474=-74.9127=14
is NY 30 North and NY 145 South.

The recommended network for USFS numbered routes is US:NFSR:(name of
the forest):NFH for a National Forest Highway, or US:NFSR:(name of the
forest):NFR for a National Forest Road. If the renderer that I've been
linking to in this message gets one of those (or just USFS for the
network, but the same numbers can be reused many times, so it's better
to have the forest included), it'll produce a shield that looks like
https://kbk.is-a-geek.net/attachments/20190818/nfsr2336.png.

If a road has no name other than its ref, practices differ between
putting in noname=yes, just leaving the name off, and giving it a name
like 'State Highway 9'. I tend to prefer the last of these, since a
renderer that doesn't have any fallback for ways without a name will
still at least render something. I also don't disturb 'ref=*' on the
way when I'm creating a route relation, but when doing rendering of
shaped shields, I ignore 'ref=*' entirely on ways that participate in
route relations.

If possible, (borrowing from another thread), keep the ways in a route
relation sorted. (If you or your editor can't do that, I'll cope, but
it makes matters easier for data consumers.)

These practices are seldom necessary in Europe, where route
concurrencies are rare, and pictorial markers are not important. They
are controversial for the rendering of the main map, because the
requirement is specific to a single locale, and because it is foreseen
to have an adverse impact on server operations when scaled up to
planetary size with minutely updates. I work on the issue of route
rendering off and on, but it's a hobby task so my progress is
agonizingly slow.

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:55, Rob Savoye  wrote:

>   So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
> to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ?
>

My opinion is "paint the label."  Others disagree.  Make up your own mind
which
is better.

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 12:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> names in OSM are usually in natural language, CR2 is probably what
> OpenStreetMap calls a ref, which is for numbers and alphanumeric
> codes. The other name is also looking like a code, I agree with
> Richard’s suggestion to use one name and 2 refs for your example.
  So no space ? USFS roads use "FS " with a space, at least that seems
to be common. So should those be "FS739.1A' ? I agree on one name and 2
refs. County road names in 'ref' and USFS names in 'ref:usfs'. I can see
I have a long editing session coming up...

  Another fun one is you can buy road signs on ebay, so another road in
that area was 'Aspen Road' according to the county, but the sign says
'Aspen Lane', cause it was in stock. :-) I made that an 'alt_name'.
After the fire was out, I had fun talking to the neighbors to try to
make sense of it all. My fire department would be so screwed without our
ability to improve our own maps.

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 19:33, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> for several names it is common to use variations of the name tag, like
> alt_name reg_name etc.
>

Yep.  And in many cases those, along with loc_name, may be the best way to
handle it.  But
only name (and ref, if used) get rendered by some carto systems.  In the
situation described,
it might be useful to abuse/misuse name a little.  Technically, name=A;B is
valid, but
semi-colons can be hard to make out, so name = A / B might be preferred by
some (and
castigated by others).  Repeating those names with alt_name=A;B means that
some
search facilities will be able to locate both names.

I think I have a comparable situation in my town.  I've yet to investigate
more fully, but it
appears there are a couple of residential roads where the official address
for houses
on one side is A Street and for houses on the other side is B Avenue.  Yes,
I know about
name:left and name:right, but they don't help somebody scanning the map for
B Avenue
if it's rendered as A Street.  I'm hoping I've misunderstood the situation
and further
investigation will show that isn't the case, but I'm not hopeful.

Real life is messy. :(

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Aug 2019, at 20:36, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> 
> Luckily a neighbor called it in, he wasn't home. using 'loc_name' or
> 'alt_name' makes sense. This entire area doesn't even exist in Google
> Maps, so people not using OSM couldn't find it till we gave directions
> on the radio.


names in OSM are usually in natural language, CR2 is probably what 
OpenStreetMap calls a ref, which is for numbers and alphanumeric codes. The 
other name is also looking like a code, I agree with Richard’s suggestion to 
use one name and 2 refs for your example.


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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 12:24 PM, Paul Allen wrote:

> If the owner calls in a fire at his house, he's going to use his own
> wrong name for the road.  So you'd probably be best to have it as a loc_name, 
> then
> there's a chance of somebody other than you finding it.

  Luckily a neighbor called it in, he wasn't home. using 'loc_name' or
'alt_name' makes sense. This entire area doesn't even exist in Google
Maps, so people not using OSM couldn't find it till we gave directions
on the radio.

> with a note saying only one guy on the entire planet calls it that would work.

  Him and UPS. :-)

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer


sent from a phone

> On 18. Aug 2019, at 17:41, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Ugly and probably breaks many explicit and implicit rules.  You'll no doubt 
> find out
> all the ways it is a bad idea very shortly.



for several names it is common to use variations of the name tag, like alt_name 
reg_name etc.

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 18:29, Rob Savoye  wrote:

>
>   Since I usually validate by truck, I use whatever the street sign
> says, since that's what the driver uses. A few weeks ago we were at a
> structure fire and a local had put up his own road sign, but with the
> wrong name! We decided to trust our map, which worked great. I had used
> used the actual common name, and put the bad sign in a 'note'. Note
> really sure how to handle that...
>

If the owner calls in a fire at his house, he's going to use his own wrong
name
for the road.  So you'd probably be best to have it as a loc_name, then
there's
a chance of somebody other than you finding it.

OTOH, if you want to make sure mappers know it's not the name of the road
no matter
what that guy says, then not:name=*.

Having it as both a loc_name and a not:name feels wrong, but a loc_name
with a note
saying only one guy on the entire planet calls it that would work.

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 11:09 AM, Johnparis wrote:
> Normally it would be "ref:usfs" rather than "usfs:ref".

  Thanks, I just found the ref=* page. Also noticed 'loc_name' and
'nat_name', and it looks like those plus ref* are used for routing.
Anyway, I like the ref:usfs tag, and will use that, and ref= for the
county designation.

> And yes, the main ref for the cited road would be "ref=CR 2". Included
> spaces in a ref tag vary by local consensus. Some places might use
> "ref=CR2". If there are signs and they are consistent I'd use that.

  Since I usually validate by truck, I use whatever the street sign
says, since that's what the driver uses. A few weeks ago we were at a
structure fire and a local had put up his own road sign, but with the
wrong name! We decided to trust our map, which worked great. I had used
used the actual common name, and put the bad sign in a 'note'. Note
really sure how to handle that...

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Johnparis
Normally it would be "ref:usfs" rather than "usfs:ref".

I frequently use tags like "ref:FR:STIF" where STIF is an agreed tag within
FR (France).

And yes, the main ref for the cited road would be "ref=CR 2". Included
spaces in a ref tag vary by local consensus. Some places might use
"ref=CR2". If there are signs and they are consistent I'd use that.





On Sun, Aug 18, 2019, 18:53 Rob Savoye  wrote:

> On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> > name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
> > ref=CR 2
> > usfs:ref=FS 729.2B
>
>   Interesting, I didn't realize "usfs:ref" is a tag. I have used ref for
> camp site numbers, didn't know it supported alphanumerics. I dug around,
> and don't see usfs:ref being used, at least not anywhere in Colorado.
>
>   I was wondering if using "alt_name" with ';' was a good idea. I guess
> the issue for me is how it appears when searching in OsmAnd, which has
> been the major gripe. I guess I can change a few obscure roads, and just
> see how OsmAnd handles it.
>
>   Where it gets interesting is for an incident on Corkscrew Gulch Road,
> Dispatch often uses the USFS designation, cause the call may come from
> the forest service. What name gets used depends on who you work for...
> Not your problem, many thanks for the input.
>
> > I think this holds even if the "county-designated name" is CR 2. The
> "name
> > everyone uses" tallies with OSM standard practice; the official
> reference is
> > what we have the ref tag for.
>
>   Plus 'name' is usually what any mapping app will put on the display.
> OSM has most all these roads already, they just have no tags beyond
> "highway=track".
>
>Minor note to other mappers, we're big into 'smoothness', 'surface',
> 'tracktype', as we use those to help determine what type of apparatus to
> respond in. I usually have to validate that by driving the road,
> although the difference between 'bad' and 'very_bad' is very open to a
> difference of opinion... (high clearance only is what I use for
> very_bad) But anyway, thank you all for good metadata!
>
> - rob -
>
> ___
> 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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 10:27 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
> ref=CR 2
> usfs:ref=FS 729.2B

  Interesting, I didn't realize "usfs:ref" is a tag. I have used ref for
camp site numbers, didn't know it supported alphanumerics. I dug around,
and don't see usfs:ref being used, at least not anywhere in Colorado.

  I was wondering if using "alt_name" with ';' was a good idea. I guess
the issue for me is how it appears when searching in OsmAnd, which has
been the major gripe. I guess I can change a few obscure roads, and just
see how OsmAnd handles it.

  Where it gets interesting is for an incident on Corkscrew Gulch Road,
Dispatch often uses the USFS designation, cause the call may come from
the forest service. What name gets used depends on who you work for...
Not your problem, many thanks for the input.

> I think this holds even if the "county-designated name" is CR 2. The "name
> everyone uses" tallies with OSM standard practice; the official reference is
> what we have the ref tag for.

  Plus 'name' is usually what any mapping app will put on the display.
OSM has most all these roads already, they just have no tags beyond
"highway=track".

   Minor note to other mappers, we're big into 'smoothness', 'surface',
'tracktype', as we use those to help determine what type of apparatus to
respond in. I usually have to validate that by driving the road,
although the difference between 'bad' and 'very_bad' is very open to a
difference of opinion... (high clearance only is what I use for
very_bad) But anyway, thank you all for good metadata!

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Richard Fairhurst
Rob Savoye wrote:
> Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. 
> The county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate 
> name everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many 
> have a US Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B". 

name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
ref=CR 2
usfs:ref=FS 729.2B

I think this holds even if the "county-designated name" is CR 2. The "name
everyone uses" tallies with OSM standard practice; the official reference is
what we have the ref tag for.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
It looks like "CR 2" is a "ref" rather than a name, and so is FS
729.2B. A ref=, short for "reference number" (or more properly
"reference alphanumeric string") is a set of letters and numbers that
identifies a feature.

While it's best to have the common name in the tag name=, like
name=Corkscrew Gulch Road, it's okay to have more than one ref in the
tag ref, separated by semicolons. Many database users can handle this.
Eg:

name=Corkscrew Gulch Road
ref=CR 2;FS 729.2B

If there are other, less common actual names, consider using
alt_name=* or loc_name=* (local, informal names), but in this case it
looks like there is just one name, but multiple reference numbers.

Joseph

On 8/19/19, Rob Savoye  wrote:
> On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>> Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that
>> springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is
>
>   Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
> sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
> different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
> USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.
>
>> name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
>> Gulch Road; FS 729.2B
>
>> If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
>> separator
>   Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
> The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
> names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
> in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
> data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
> map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...
>
>   - rob -
>
> ___
> 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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Rob Savoye
On 8/18/19 9:41 AM, Paul Allen wrote:

> Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that 
> springs to mind, and which will no doubt be highly controversial is

  Yes, it's county designated name. It's gets messier than that, as
sometimes "CR 2" might include multiple other road segments, all with
different names common and USFS names. We prefer the common name or the
USFS name, but I have no control over what Dispatch gives us.

> name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew
> Gulch Road; FS 729.2B

> If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;”
> separator
  Ah, I've used that elsewhere, didn't think about it for road names.
The problem though is since the name gets displayed, too many long road
names obscures the map. I've had similar problems with house addresses
in the more densely populated areas. When I produce a KML file from OSM
data, I put all the names in the description popup. That works in GPS
map apps, but not in OsmAnd. Plus I wonder if that would break routing...

- rob -

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


Re: [Tagging] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Julien djakk
Hello Rob !

If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;” separator

Julien “djakk”


Le dim. 18 août 2019 à 17:17, Rob Savoye  a écrit :

>   Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. The
> county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate name
> everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many have a US
> Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B". I usually use the common
> name as the 'name' tag, and the USFS designation as the 'alt_name' tag.
> I kindof would like to include the county name as well. I do see a lot
> of roads use 'name_1', but that gets flagged often by validation. So my
> question is, how to I tag all three road names appropriately ?
>
>   As a fire-fighter, all 3 names get used all depending on there the
> incident report comes from, so we need to know them all. Us old
> responders of course know everywhere, but I'm trying to help the new
> generation in our department be effective in our huge remote district,
> cause we're all retiring...
>
>   Minor note. All of our fire apparatus have a 10" Android tablet
> mounted to the dash that runs OsmAnd (of course), and we use offline
> navigation heavily, which is where the road names become important.
> Using Open Data has decreased our response time, and on occasion, saved
> somebody's life.
>
> - rob -
>
> ___
> 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] roads with many names

2019-08-18 Thread Paul Allen
On Sun, 18 Aug 2019 at 16:17, Rob Savoye  wrote:

>   Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. The
> county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate name
> everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many have a US
> Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B". I usually use the common
> name as the 'name' tag, and the USFS designation as the 'alt_name' tag.
> I kindof would like to include the county name as well. I do see a lot
> of roads use 'name_1', but that gets flagged often by validation. So my
> question is, how to I tag all three road names appropriately ?
>

Assuming that "CR 2" is a name and not a ref, one possibility that springs
to mind,
and which will no doubt be highly controversial is

name=CR 2 / Corkscrew Gulch Road / FS 729.2B
alt_name=CR 2; Corkscrew Gulch Road; FS 729.2B

Ugly and probably breaks many explicit and implicit rules.  You'll no doubt
find out
all the ways it is a bad idea very shortly.

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