OK, a metaphorical gauntlet has been thrown down, and Richard makes great
points. That said, is there any chance the US community can find some
agreement about highway tagging? And once we do, we can broker the
Israel-Palestine peace talks. :)
But seriously, it seems like we need some sort of
A blog post at 41latitude[0] has sparked a discussion on
t...@openstreetmap.org. One of the comments there was that about half of
the points made concern inconsistent tagging in the US. (Most of the rest
concern map rendering, which is more global in scope.) I'd like to
discuss some of those
On 10/15/10 12:00 PM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
OK, a metaphorical gauntlet has been thrown down, and Richard makes
great points. That said, is there any chance the US community can
find some agreement about highway tagging? And once we do, we can
broker the Israel-Palestine peace talks. :)
* Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 11:00 -0500]:
Nice timing. :)
That said, is there any chance the US community can find some agreement
about highway tagging?
I think so. I hope to get some good discussion on my email.
But seriously, it seems like we need some sort of
Hi Brad list,
Well, you mentioned working groups. Have you considered standing up a
US-based Tagging working group? Perhaps the WG could take on highway
tagging as a first project.
Here's where to go to get started:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 12:08 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
== Hyphens ==
There's a lot of inconsistency in tagging in road's ref= tags. The main
wiki pages (Interstate Highways, United States road tagging) specifically
call for using spaces between the network designation and the network
number.
== Inconsistent State Prefixes ==
I wish there was a better (simpler) way to consistently tag the state and
county shields but I do not have one. I think it needs to be done though.
Compared to the rest of the world, I think the US has an extra layer of 50
varying standards to deal with.
I
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
Shield rendering has its own complications, though if it were implemented
we could basically stop caring about the aesthetics of the ref= tags. (If
you had to use US:UT 67 to get a shield, most people would do it that
way.)
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
should we use the prefixes that locals use? If we use postal codes, what
should we do
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
I haven't seen this around me, but apparently there are roads that use the
initials of the road's name as a ref=. Is this in keeping with the other
uses of ref=, i.e. that the road is a member of a particular network and
this
On 10/15/10 2:25 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
*
Those are interesting examples. Taking them in order, the Meadowbrook
Parkway is part of the New York State Parkway System, which appears to me
to be a subset of the state highway system, especially since it does have
an (unsigned) highway reference
i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging
if you are interested in participating, add your name. if you are
interested in being chair so i don't
have to, please mention that.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging
if you are interested in participating, add your name.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
wrote:
i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done. E-mails
are by
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some
level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
place.
New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know
how to map.
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some
level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
place.
New
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
phone call. All that aside though I think key is just to have some
level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
place.
New
* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 14:55 -0500]:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
mailing list?
I had planned on mentioning this on talk@ and the US forums to try to get
more people contributing. I haven't done that yet because I've mostly
been
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm interested in getting as broad a consensus on this issues as possible,
so I'd prefer not to have a single person dominating the discussion.
You might try talk@ and tagging@ to get some international opinions.
It might not
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 14:55 -0500]:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
mailing list?
I had planned on mentioning this on talk@ and the US forums to try to get
more
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Dale Puch dale.p...@gmail.com wrote:
== Inconsistent State Prefixes ==
I wish there was a better (simpler) way to consistently tag the state and
county shields but I do not have one. I think it needs to be done though.
Compared to the rest of the world, I
On 10/15/10 4:46 PM, Al Haraka wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Phil! Goldphi...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm interested in getting as broad a consensus on this issues as possible,
so I'd prefer not to have a single person dominating the discussion.
Ditto.
one of the roles of a good WG
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.com wrote:
On a kind of related note, can anyone report how effective the Project
of the Week initiative is?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week
Funny you should ask.
Trackability isn't the main goal for PotW, but
If you want to mention among other places frequented by US mappers, feel
free
Some people detest the mailing list signup grind, and thus choose the web
forum at http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=20 .
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:03 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.com wrote:
On a kind of related note, can anyone report how effective the Project
of the Week initiative is?
This is really just a problem with map coverage, not tagging convention,
but I'd like to ask about consensus on name= and ref= tags for
motorway_junctions. ref= is pretty obviously the exit number, but
although some wiki pages (Interstate Highways, in particular) say or
imply
that everything
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
and for county road HHH:
type=route
route=road
network=US:WI:CO
ref=HHH
Why CO? Doesn't Wisconsin use CTH (county trunk highway)?
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense
but
isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?
No, but no
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
or similar). For example the I-x denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Relations are the only way to do routes correctly, period. Tagging
individual ways for things that overlap does not/will not work.
If clients break relations when a user splits a way then they should have
bugs filed against
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Al Haraka alhar...@gmail.com wrote:
I think these are all great ideas. For the benefit of the list, what
do you see as a complete project? I will try to add proposals if I
can think of some, and work on the obvious points like participating.
Haha. As the
On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com
mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I made that one up (CO for
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
NY 17 enters
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
On 10/15/10 10:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Deesian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County
Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
lead to no conclusions or
Mike N. nice...@att.net writes:
If you want to mention among other places frequented by US mappers,
feel free
Some people detest the mailing list signup grind, and thus choose the
web forum at http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=20 .
There's a forum?
I don't have a problem
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
== Some Interstates Show Exits—Others Don't ==
This is really just a problem with map coverage, not tagging convention,
but I'd like to ask about consensus on name= and ref= tags
This seems relevant to this thread, although it's not in reply to any
particular part of it:
As part of a school project, I'm creating a robot that will use the
TIGER metadata to automatically attempt to create route relations for
State Roads. (The Interstates and US Highways are mostly
43 matches
Mail list logo
