On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 14:30 -0500, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm not talking about shield placement. I mean that the
specific
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought this had been decided: we decided on route relations with various
tags designating the kind (interstate/state/county route), the number, and
the name. The ways retain their information for backwards compatibility.
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to disappoint, but the 17x17 example that you gave is quite
readable.
Not nearly as readable as a lone 7.
I've attached another 17x17 that is also
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sorry to
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Wed, Oct
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 10:11 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 01:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No for state roads in general. Some shields are poorly-designed for
display in a limited number of
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 13:15 -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 10:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
It's a tradeoff where bigger shields reduce the space for other features.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to disappoint, but the 17x17 example that you gave is quite
readable.
Not nearly as readable as a lone 7.
I've attached another 17x17 that is also readable. Since
readability at 17x17 is demonstrably not an issue,
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 01:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, let's decide if we should render the route numbers in route-type
specific shields. I think that we should do so. Let's not let Google,
MapQuest and
* Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com [2010-10-25 22:45 -0600]:
Second, let's decide if we should render the route numbers in route-type
specific shields.
I think that everyone agrees with this. The problem is that it's somewhat
difficult with our rendering toolchain. There are, however, people
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 3:17 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 01:27 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No for state roads in general. Some shields are poorly-designed for
display in a limited number of pixels. For example
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 09:11 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Attached are the bitmaps of the shield that is poorly-designed for
display in a limited number of pixels. The first one is 39x39 pixels,
and the second is 20x20 pixels.
On 10/26/2010 10:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
The actual size of a circular 7 shield generated by Mapnik.
Yeah, but is it set in stone that it Cannot Be Larger Than It Is Now? I
doubt it. And I feel that gaining the ability to have state-specific
shields is worth giving up a tiny bit of
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 10:50 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
It's a tradeoff where bigger shields reduce the space for other features.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t adjust to give a little more space
to highway shields.
On 10/26/2010 12:15 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
These rendering decisions are completely unrelated to the discussion
of how shields might best be tagged.
This portion of the thread clearly moved on to a different but related
topic as soon as someone said “Some shields are poorly-designed for
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 12:15 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
These rendering decisions are completely unrelated to the discussion
of how shields might best be tagged.
This portion of the thread clearly moved on to a different but
On 10/26/2010 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
As for the question of tagging, basically you can use relations, or
you can hack something up to simulate relations (specifically, to
handle the very common situation where there is more than one route
using the same way) without actually using relations.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/26/2010 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
As for the question of tagging, basically you can use relations, or
you can hack something up to simulate relations (specifically, to
handle the very common situation where there is
On 10/23/2010 10:46 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.comwrote:
Because we're not in Europe? The common way to visually specify the
difference between our roads is with shields. Every single nav product I've
interacted with (Google Maps,
* Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]:
So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed
to be a requirement no matter what.
Not strictly. Having a prefix in the rendering is important, but that can
be synthesized from the other tags in every suggestion
On 10/25/2010 02:44 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]:
So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed
to be a requirement no matter what.
Not strictly. Having a prefix in the rendering is important, but that can
be
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/25/2010 02:44 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]:
So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed
to be a requirement no matter what.
Not
On 10/25/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states
(Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of the
reference number: “The M in the state highway numbers is an integral part of
the designation…Michigan
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/25/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states
(Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of
the
reference number: “The M in
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Second, let's decide if we should render the route numbers in route-type
specific shields. I think that we should do so. Let's not let Google,
MapQuest and Bing be a ceiling,
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2010-10-15 18:00 -0400]:
No prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas officially uses
IH x).
I assume this is a standard for referring to Interstates in purely textual
contexts (since signage would use the Interstate shields). Is that
standard
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Prefix information should not go in OSM. If a renderer wants to display a
prefix somehow, then they can go look it up based on other information given
in the other tags on the relation.
Then why do the Germans use A 9 and B
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.comwrote:
On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin
Highway
66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have ref=10;66;39.
Not
very useful for
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Prefix information should not go in OSM. If a renderer wants to display a
prefix somehow, then they can go look it up based on other information
* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2010-10-23 10:39 -0500]:
Prefix information should not go in OSM. If a renderer wants to display a
prefix somehow, then they can go look it up based on other information given
in the other tags on the relation.
I think it's too late to say that prefix information
* Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com [2010-10-18 22:49 -0600]:
On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 14:25 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
[...] Instead, I would treat it as a road that needed a
custom shield, if any shield was rendered at all. I'll note that Google,
Bing, and Mapquest all appear to have punted on
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Prefix information should not go in OSM. If a renderer wants to display
a
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com
On Sat, 2010-10-23 at 06:30 -0700, Craig Hinners wrote:
[...] (Or, if you're of the brevity and ambiguity trumps verbosity and clarity
camp, I give you network:US:WI, network:US:US, network:US:I.)
[...]
No endless parsing of the tag value, looking for I- to determine
whether that way is an
On 10/23/2010 10:39 AM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
mailto:nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Phil! Gold
phi...@pobox.com
mailto:phi...@pobox.com wrote:
Do you know whether other states have
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/23/2010 05:00 PM, Mike N. wrote:
should be using reply to mailing
list and not reply to all. The former has been around in modern
mailers not politically motivated to do the wrong things for about 10
years
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
On 10/18/2010 03:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
route involves using the actual county name, e.g.
I wouldn’t
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work. And as renderers can
only handle ways for now…
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
from
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
rather quickly.
I for one would consider that to be vandalism. I also
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too long, though. Just remove the ref info
On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthonyo...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
For now shouldn't last too
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
I guess renderers are going to be wrong or
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/18/2010 04:16
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Ways and relations are equally easy to break
Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
way. A way is always uploaded with its tags, but for various reasons
(editor bugs, huge relations causing timeouts,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
Ways and relations are equally easy to break
Nope. They're not, because
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the
network=*
or ref=* tags (thus my
Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to
render highway shields in the US?
Mapquest may be using relations to generate shields, but I have seen
Interstate shields on Interstate highways with no relations, so relations
aren't their only source for shields.
* Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com [2010-10-16 20:56 -0500]:
Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to
render highway shields in the US?
I've looked at their stylesheets, and they're not. They're just matching
the I or US at the beginning of the ways' ref= tags.
--
AJ,
I'm not disposing of IRC, frankly I use it myself. I'm just saying
that there are downsides/upsides to both phone calls/email/IRC/IM/etc.
My real point is that new people probably don't want to argue about
tags in the first place. Many people come to mapping parties and say
what do you
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Kate Chapman k...@maploser.com wrote:
AJ,
I'm not disposing of IRC, frankly I use it myself. I'm just saying
that there are downsides/upsides to both phone calls/email/IRC/IM/etc.
My real point is that new people probably don't want to argue about
tags in
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction has
mentioned it for several months. Browsing through
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit_to I see use in Florida
(me), the UK, and France. There's also some use of
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit:to .
If we're
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed. Eventually, all the existing
entries must be converted. (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
name=
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N. nice...@att.net wrote:
If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed. Eventually, all the existing
entries must be converted. (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
name=
On 10/15/2010 11:47 AM, Val Kartchner wrote:
The standard should be something easy to parse. Perhaps, for the above
example, it would be US:UT:SR-67. This would allow an easy way to
parse which shield to use. For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
be CA:BC:12. The colons would
On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees
ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org wrote:
I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
This is why we have route relations. It's getting to the point of
ridiculous that we don't have proper rendering of something as basic as
a route relation.
Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using
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 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
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
