Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Peter Davies wrote: > Paul, > > One of the things that Martijn and I agree needs to be possible is for > routes to change directional posting part-way along. This commonly happens > on beltways like that around Minneapolis St-Paul, that around Indie, and on > AZ Lo

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Martijn, When you're dealing with a repeatedly mixed single/dual carriageway road, such as CA 78, the lack of a diagram in JOSM showing single/dual logic once you switch from role=forward to role=east (or west) soon becomes unbearable. In the end I gave up and created separate EB and WB relation

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Paul, One of the things that Martijn and I agree needs to be possible is for routes to change directional posting part-way along. This commonly happens on beltways like that around Minneapolis St-Paul, that around Indie, and on AZ Loop 101 and 202 here in Metro Phoenix. For my part, I also feel w

[Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

> > > The main thing I haven't looked into yet is the validation checks. Who > knows which validation checks are run on relations in JOSM and/or iD > to ensure 'unbroken-ness' and perhaps other things? > The only tool I know to do this in a useful way is the OSM Relation Analyzer http://ra.osmsur

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I'm curious how this proposal works with roads like the northern section of the Muskogee Turnpike, which officially runs "North" towards Tulsa, and "East" towards Muskogee, the road's two terminii. On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chris

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > For example: way X pointing east is marked in relation Y as "east" > (presumably we could assume that "east" = forward and the opposite cardinal > direction "west" is backward). User reverses way X. Now the relation role is > potentially bac

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Last night I wrote a long discussion of why I think we need to show the cardinal directions of both OSM forward and OSM backward for 2-way ways that serve both route directions in relation member roles. In particular I argued for the use of two different symbols for two use cases: one where the ta

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

gt;> > >> Kristen > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> > >> > >> OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK > >> > >> > >> > >> From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotm

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

d / > >> role=east:unsigned > >> > >> for unsigned segments, unless the entire numbered route is unsigned, > >> in which case unsigned_ref would do the job. > >> > >> Any more insights and comments? > >> > >> Thanks > >&g

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

ors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch2) to have support to be able to reverse those > > roles correctly if somebody reverses the way. Can't allow those to get > > messed up once added. (On a side note, iD doesn't alert you if you > delete a > > way that's part of a relation

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Matijn, James, Like Saikrishna, I am in favor of using the colon or pipe symbol rather than the semi-colon, for reasons that Martijn originally outlined. However, Martijn then changed his mind, which to my thinking seems a pity. Is there any chance that you could be persuaded to change it back, M

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I, personally, am in favor of using the colon rather than the semicolon, for the reasons Martijn outlined a few emails back. Saikrishna Arcot On Thu 19 Dec 2013 03:23:53 AM IST, James Mast wrote: > I have no problems going with either ":" or ";" for the separator for > unsigned segments of highw

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I have no problems going with either ":" or ";" for the separator for unsigned segments of highways in the role area. What does everybody else think? As this shouldn't be decided by just two people. We do still need the consensuses of [talk-us] before any mass changing of relations happen. L

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Hi, * Martijn van Exel [131218 20:46]: > I am having second thoughts on the colon separator for > role=north:unsigned. The colon separator seems to be more common in > keys, like lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=2 etc. while the semicolon > or pipe seem to be more prevalent to separate values. The

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

alk >>> page??). I personally think it could work, but we would need all of the >>> editors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch2) to have support to be able to reverse those >>> roles correctly if somebody reverses the way. Can't allow those to get >>> messed up once added.

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

if somebody reverses the way. Can't allow those to get >> messed up once added. (On a side note, iD doesn't alert you if you delete a >> way that's part of a relation yet, which isn't good at all.) >> >> -James >> >>> From: m...@rtijn.or

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Paul - I believe we should go with what has been adopted the most - this has been a leading argument in my thinking about this: the data dictates and in this case indicates that the member role is the preferred place for the cardinal directions overall. I don't really see how the parent / child met

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

elete a > way that's part of a relation yet, which isn't good at all.) > > -James > >> From: m...@rtijn.org >> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:16:54 -0800 >> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com >> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Sepa

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:41 AM, James Mast wrote: > Also, I have noticed you've been doing some editing for the "Highway > Directions In The United States" wiki page [1] and mention the "role = > north;south" idea for single carriageways so that the routes could tell > people which direction the

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

he ref tags on > > normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields > > based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = > > north:unsigned). > > > > -James > > > >> From: m...@rtijn.org > &g

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

ref tags on > normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields > based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = > north:unsigned). > > -James > >> From: m...@rtijn.org >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700 &

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

;" at least in the ref tags on normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = north:unsigned). -James > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700 &

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

il.com] On Behalf Of Martijn van Exel Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:04 PM To: Kam, Kristen -(p) Cc: James Mast; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways. Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

;> >> Kristen >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> >> OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK >> >> >> >> From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM >&

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM > To: Martijn van Exel > Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State > highways. > > > > Martijn, > > How would you suggest us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

ember 05, 2013 5:18 PM To: Martijn van Exel Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways. Martijn, How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for completely unsigned highways like I-124

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

te on some segments. -James > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State > highways. > > Hi James,

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

2013/12/5 Martijn van Exel > I think the unsigned_ref practice is so common here that we should > just keep that practice. Perhaps also a good one to document on the > wiki. > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States > may not be the best place for it unless we w

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 12/5/13 12:17 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > For what it's worth, at Telenav we have started relying solely on the > relation refs when it comes to route numbers. The way refs just seem > so cumbersome to maintain, and make for a lot of redundant > information. This is the stuff that relations we

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I just created a stub for the signed / unsigned paragraph on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States - however, the {{Tag}} template does not support the inclusion of a | as far as I can see.. Please feel free to expand / edit. On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Mar

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Richard - true. It's sort of a chicken vs egg situation. As long as there is no clear use case for one or the other, both practices will remain in use. That's why I was so excited to see work continue on the shield rendering which uses the refs on the relations. As I mentioned, at Telenav we also p

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM, James Mast wrote: > Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the current > status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags > (see I-394 example below). > > In your example with I-394 and US-12, if you look at the way's tag

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I think the unsigned_ref practice is so common here that we should just keep that practice. Perhaps also a good one to document on the wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States may not be the best place for it unless we want to make this page cover the broader

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Hi James, I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging practice to use role:signed = yes/no? I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you can add a paragraph to the wiki page ht

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 11/30/13 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast > mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote: > > Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the > current status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & > unsigned_ref" tags (s

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast wrote: > Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the current > status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags > (see I-394 example below). I can't wait until we can finally kill this dinosaur. Refs, as they

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:39 AM, James Mast wrote: > If you want to see an example, download US-30's WV relation [2] into JOSM > and change the cardinal roles all back to "forward". You can then see the > value of those splits in relation analysis inside of JOSM that the roles > forward/backward

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

p.org/relation/3078417 [4] - http://goo.gl/maps/4fJYC [5] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1861175 Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:01:29 -0800 From: peter.dav...@crc-corp.com To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US &

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 11/30/13 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/11/30 Peter Davies > > > So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12. For my > applications I'd prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to > track the overlaps (which we and our 10 state

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

2013/11/30 Peter Davies > So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12. For my applications I'd > prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to track the overlaps (which we > and our 10 state DOT customers call double banding). But if you also want > to suppress shields from maps in such ar

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

James, I have a question about this, though it all sounds good to me in principle. Is your proposal just about the relations? What would we do on the refs of the ways? For example, on I-394 in Minneapolis and western suburbs, a mapper has left off US 12 because it is at least partly unsigned. S

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments that are hidden. Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 01:11 2013-11-27, Peter Davies wrote: Martijn, I think it would be conceptually clearest for all the 2-way single carriageway ways to point the same way and would suggest that this should normally in be the direction of increasing milepoints/pointes kilometriques (usually northwards or eastw

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Martijn, I think it would be conceptually clearest for all the 2-way single carriageway ways to point the same way and would suggest that this should normally in be the direction of increasing milepoints/pointes kilometriques (usually northwards or eastwards). At Castle Rock we call this the pos

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 11/26/2013 01:58 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: There is some discussion going on over on the wiki page I created on this topic: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States Mostly dealing with how to prevent redundant relations where the numbered route is a bi

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

There is some discussion going on over on the wiki page I created on this topic: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States Mostly dealing with how to prevent redundant relations where the numbered route is a bidirectional road (i.e. there are no separate OSM w

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

ics would be. https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5109 - James > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:26:27 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State > highways. > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org >

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

You mean that in the relation editor, you would be able to see the same split between north / south and east / west that you currently see for forward/backward? (like here https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwi2gx8tixsuva2/Screen%20Shot%202013-11-26%20at%209.25.08%20AM.jpg ) Yes, that makes sense to me. I

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

So, nobody has a comment on my idea (from the 22nd) of getting JOSM to show north/south or east/west splits in the relation editor to be displayed the same way as the forward/backward gets shown already? I would try to do some coding to allow that to happen in JOSM, but I don't know how to code

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Potlatch does let you reverse ways: click the direction-indicating arrow(s). On 2013-11-21 7:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when reversing a way. Neither does Potlatch

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

This should go live pretty soon: https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/543 On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > The patch has been merged into master and should make it into the next > iD release. > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Martijn van Ex

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

> From: lordsu...@gmail.com > Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 03:27:21 -0500 > To: marti...@telenav.com > > CC: krist...@telenav.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org; h...@telenav.cn; > > vladim...@telenav.com; chr...@telenav.com > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Try looking in the US:OK and US:OK:Turnpike networks. Pretty verigated mix of divided, undivided and intermittently divided routes there. On Nov 18, 2013 3:05 PM, "Jason Remillard" wrote: > Hi, > > As a meta comment. I have been trying to follow all of the US > route/shield discussions over the

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I'm willing to extend this to any route whose endpoints are undivided. Seems the problem we're ultimately dealing with are situations where a route ends with a median of some type. On Nov 18, 2013 2:42 PM, "Martin Koppenhoefer" wrote: > > 2013/11/18 Nathan Mills > >> I'm still confused as to why

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Nov 18, 2013 7:24 PM, "Evin Fairchild" wrote: > > Re the comment by Nathan: “I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the forward/backward roles…” The forward/backward roles only make sense on one-way roads. Individual members of relations that are one way. Makes se

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

The patch has been merged into master and should make it into the next iD release. On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed > that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when > reversing a way.

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when reversing a way. Neither does Potlatch (although Potlatch does not seem to actually allow you to reverse a way, just to flip the oneway= between 1 and -1). At least i

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Reading through this I see that most are in favor of avoiding dividing > relations more than necessary: no separate relations for directions, > especially not if the geometry is the same for both. > > That leaves the question of how to tag

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Hey all, Reading through this I see that most are in favor of avoiding dividing relations more than necessary: no separate relations for directions, especially not if the geometry is the same for both. That leaves the question of how to tag cardinal directions? As I said before, I think the role

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

James, This does warrant an explanation for sure. Kristen is one of my colleagues here at Telenav and we discussed best editing practices for cardinal direction information here internally. The plan was to take the discussion to this list before proceeding on any kind of scale. I managed this poor

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Well, one of the main reasons I brought this up is because I've noticed another user changing some relations from "forward/backward" to "west/east"/"south/north" without discussing this here on talk-us. That user would happen to be KristenK. This user has been doing this since the 11th at lea

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

other two. -Compdude From: Nathan Mills [mailto:nat...@nwacg.net] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:28 PM To: OpenStreetMap U.S. Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways. I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

They're not at all hard to find in the US. I would wager that fewer than 50% of the actual on the ground road routes in the US have any divided segment whatsoever. What exactly is captured by two relations that is not captured by one, however? That's the part I'm not understanding. We have tool

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Hi, As a meta comment. I have been trying to follow all of the US route/shield discussions over the past couple of months. I don't feel confident that I understand the consensus on how to map these routes+shields and do not feel comfortable editing them. When the dust settles, could somebody that

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

2013/11/18 Nathan Mills > I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the > forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring > completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a > super relation per road route even for undi

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a super relation per road route even for undivided highways? Even for a some

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Not a fan. It greatly complicates things for information that can either > be gleaned obviously or is a "nice to have." Having 3+ relations for > something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the > exception edge case of

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

Not a fan. It greatly complicates things for information that can either be gleaned obviously or is a "nice to have." Having 3+ relations for something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the exception edge case of a relation that starts or ends on a divided highway. On Sun,

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 11/17/2013 5:55 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: I don't think it's a good idea to automatically remove symbol=. +1 - as a manually added tag, removing the tag would be destroying hand-acquired data. And just because a known shield renderer doesn't use it today, doesn't mean future renderers mig

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 07:47 2013-11-17, Richard Welty wrote: perhaps symbol can go on the list of tags that editors remove automagically. I don't think it's a good idea to automatically remove symbol=. Even though in the U.S. we've been using it mostly for URLs to Wikimedia Commons images, the wiki [1] suggests

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

On 11/17/13 10:30 AM, James Mast wrote: > > Also, on a side note, do you guys think we should remove the "symbol" > tags in the relations from all the Interstates/US highways they show > up in at the same time? not sure what i think about the relation splitting idea. but i do agree that the symbol

[Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

I'm just curious, but what's everybody's opinion on this? I know it's acceptable for the Interstates (some are setup this way, some aren't) since they are all divided, but what about for US Highways and State Highways? I know that we want to eventually have the cardinal directions in OSM for t