Re: [Talk-ca] destination:street

2017-01-19 Thread Denis Carriere 
I've also been using Mapbox's document as reference for exit signs and off
ramps. I believe it makes a lot more sense to divide the tags into separate
known entities instead of adding all of values into a single destination
tag.

The OSM tags seemed to be well described in their docs:


   - destination tag refers to the place that the way exiting from the
   freeway leads to.
   - destination:ref is the reference of the roads directly ahead.
   - destination:ref:to is to specify the reference of a major highway
   ahead.
   - destination:street refers to the main street the way exiting from the
   freeway leads to.

I am supportive of the *destination:street *tag.


*~~*
*Denis Carriere*
*GIS Software & Systems Specialist*

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Kevin Farrugia 
wrote:

> Hey Martijn & everyone else,
>
> The bulk of destination:street was added beginning with Mapbox's "Mapping
> exit numbers and destinations in Canada", which described the methods to
> use [https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/220]  Since then, most of
> us (me included) in Southern Ontario have just continued that method on the
> map.  They used to be combined in the destination tag, but they've since
> been separated out, so this is still actively used.  The documentation I
> used to better understand it was on the Exit Info page: http://wiki.
> openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info
>
> I could see it having a bit more usefulness for routing purposes, but
> you're on that side of the equation, not me :)
>
> -Kevin (Kevo)
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on
>> (mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag
>> of the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is
>> some sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.
>>
>> An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2
>>
>> Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 /
>> http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 — I think in the US we would
>> just map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1
>>
>> So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is
>> this actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should
>> it be documented? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.or
>> g/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details seems to be a good
>> candidate.)
>>
>> We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but
>> I wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.
>>
>> Happy mapping,
>>
>> Martijn van Exel
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] destination:street

2017-01-19 Thread Kevin Farrugia 
Hey Martijn & everyone else,

The bulk of destination:street was added beginning with Mapbox's "Mapping
exit numbers and destinations in Canada", which described the methods to
use [https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/220]  Since then, most of us
(me included) in Southern Ontario have just continued that method on the
map.  They used to be combined in the destination tag, but they've since
been separated out, so this is still actively used.  The documentation I
used to better understand it was on the Exit Info page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info

I could see it having a bit more usefulness for routing purposes, but
you're on that side of the equation, not me :)

-Kevin (Kevo)

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on
> (mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag
> of the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is
> some sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.
>
> An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2
>
> Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 /
> http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 — I think in the US we would
> just map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1
>
> So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is
> this actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should
> it be documented? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Destination_details seems to be a good candidate.)
>
> We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but I
> wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.
>
> Happy mapping,
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] destination:street

2017-01-19 Thread James 
Destination tags were added by mapbox for highways in Canada and the US:


https://www.mapbox.com/mapping/mapping-for-navigation/adding-exit-and-destination-signs/

On Jan 19, 2017 8:02 PM, "Martijn van Exel"  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on
> (mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag
> of the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is
> some sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.
>
> An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2
>
> Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 /
> http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 — I think in the US we would
> just map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1
>
> So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is
> this actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should
> it be documented? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Destination_details seems to be a good candidate.)
>
> We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but I
> wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.
>
> Happy mapping,
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] destination:street

2017-01-19 Thread Martijn van Exel 
Hi all, 

The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on 
(mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag of 
the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is some 
sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.

An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2  

Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 
 / 
http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 
 — I think in the US we would just 
map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1

So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is this 
actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should it be 
documented? 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details 
 
seems to be a good candidate.)

We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but I 
wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.

Happy mapping,

Martijn van Exel

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] cardinal directions

2017-01-19 Thread Martijn van Exel 

Martijn van Exel

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martijn van Exel  > wrote:
> I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion that we had 
> on talk-us a couple of years ago. Right now both are used 
> (north/south/east/west as relation member role as well as direction on the 
> relation tag) but the former is used way more often. That’s why I am 
> suggesting going with the practice that has surfaced as the most popular, as 
> well as the outcome of earlier discussion. 
> 
> Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly, but I am *not* suggesting to 
> use tags on ways to indicate cardinal direction, just assign roles to 
> relation members. Agreed that adding this type of info to ways makes it 
> impossible to validate / maintain.
> 
> Right, I think we're on the same page.  I'm also suggesting it's high time we 
> revisited the issue as the tools to handle managing north/east/south/west 
> roles (as opposed to forward/backward) just plain never materialized.  If it 
> was going to happen, it would have already happened (it's been years!).

What tools were you thinking about? I remember submitting a patch to JOSM a 
while ago which did not get accepted.. That’s all I did on the tools end of 
things. Agreed support could be better.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] weeklyOSM #339 10/01/2017-16/01/2017

2017-01-19 Thread weeklyteam 
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 339,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/8619/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM?
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca