Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]: >> I think concurrencies might look better stacked vertically in some >> circumstances... you'd have to have some logic about the underlying >> direction of the way to make that happen, but vertical stacking would >> look nicer on N-S ways I think. >> >> Compare: >> http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.13887&lon=-80.34525&layers=B0 >> and >> http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.19653&lon=-80.22878&layers=B0 > > Try those URLs agan and let me know if you like the way it looks now. > Most of the map still has to rerender (and I'm focusing the server on > putting Interstates on the low zoom levels at the moment), but the areas > around those links should be up to date. Wow. Vertical pairs. Looks nice, and switches back to horizontal as the line orientation changes. :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]: > But it's still strange to see shields hanging off either side of a > north-south stretch of road. [1] > > I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency > > [1] http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/cutouts/15/8690/12512.png * Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]: > I think concurrencies might look better stacked vertically in some > circumstances... you'd have to have some logic about the underlying > direction of the way to make that happen, but vertical stacking would > look nicer on N-S ways I think. > > Compare: > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.13887&lon=-80.34525&layers=B0 > and > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.19653&lon=-80.22878&layers=B0 Try those URLs agan and let me know if you like the way it looks now. Most of the map still has to rerender (and I'm focusing the server on putting Interstates on the low zoom levels at the moment), but the areas around those links should be up to date. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Something must be Done This is Something Therefore, This must be Done -- The Thatcherite Syllogism --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > That tagging is nonsense. There's no "Truck U.S. Highway" network, only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bannered routes pretty much the reason for the "modifier" tag? Yes, they are, and I would not object to ref=17 modifier=Truck, except that you run into problems with an alternate route that's signed with a suffix - ref=70A with no modifier doesn't include the information that it's a modified version of another route, and ref=70 modifier=A would be unclear as to how the A modifies the 70 (it could be 70-A). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote: > > That tagging is nonsense. There's no "Truck U.S. Highway" network, only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bannered routes pretty much the reason for the "modifier" tag? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 5:19 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: If you want to tag your local routes that way, I won't stop you. But I don't want to have to deal with multiple tagging standards and it seems to me that there's a consensus on this list that network=US:US:Truck, ref=17 is the better approach, so that's what I will focus on rendering. That tagging is nonsense. There's no "Truck U.S. Highway" network, only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Bicycle Shield Rendering
That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. And these edge cases (city routes and state secondary/supplemental routes, especially oddball (Oregon) and extreme (Texas) cases) make for great prepwork to render cycleway network trailblazers (which tend towards obscenely diverse in much of the US). Please! At least in the USA (and here we are in the talk-us pages), a very simplified beginning to this approach really should start with the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices) standards for bicycle route signage. This is already well-referenced in OSM's wiki here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes#United_States Beginning with only two shields (perhaps three, perhaps four beginning in California with local routes) will keep this MUCH simplified while still adhering to widely-adopted standards (again, at least in the USA). The ncn (national) route shield is shown in that wiki section as ncn_ref, and the rcn (statewide) route shield is shown in that section as rcn_ref. MANY if not MOST states (I don't have a source, just a gut feeling) use these. These would be the better "seed" two to start with (in my strongly-held opinion). THEN, there are local signs. That wiki section shows the generic green "Bike Route" sign (that exact text below the bicycle glyph) as appropriate for ways tagged with "bicycle=yes" but this does not fully capture how to sign local route NUMBERS in an lcn network, which are rapidly emerging, especially in California. To wit, the Bay Area is becoming rich and well-connected with actual and proposed local and regional bicycle networks which rather nicely display in Cycle Map layer. Some are deployed and signed (like San Francisco), some are deployed and not signed (or well-signed, like VTA/South Bay/San Jose/Silicon Valley), some are just getting started and are proposed only (display in Cycle Map as dashed lines, like Santa Cruz). True, for LOCAL bike routes, there is wide variation. However, I can say that the MUTCD does allow the "SG45" sign designation for local bike routes in California. This is a portrait-orientation rectangular sign of white background and dark green border trim, with an oval inside of that, again with a dark-green border trim. The lower two-thirds of the oval is dark green and shows the bicycle glyph in the center in white, and a number (one, two or even three digit) in the bottom (again, in white on the dark green background of the lower two-thirds of the trimmed oval). The upper one-third of the oval is white, and designated "City Bike Route" in a cursive script of dark green. Well, this is in the generic MUTCD depiction: specific cities put something specific to that city in the upper third of the oval. For example, San Francisco's (excellent) lcn (local cycleway network) has a Golden Gate Bridge logo in the top third of the oval. You can see this here: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/signtech/signdel/specs/SG45.pdf although that is in monochrome, the green and white version is nicer, and should be used for a local bike route shield if that is what is desired, but I can't easily find a color/green-and-white version on line. See Cycle Map layer in the US (in fact, take a look at the Bay Area of California here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=37.284&lon=-121.622&zoom=9&layers=C Do zoom in (especially San Francisco) to see numbering, as at zoom=9 it's a pretty wide-area view and only shows (proposed) national route 95. Andy Allan, author of Cycle Map layer, is currently using rather plain-looking landscape-orientation rectangles with numbers (or sometimes letters as abbreviations of named bicycle routes), but he does get the colors "right" to correspond to various levels of the hierarchy (red = national, light blue = regional, or statewide in the USA, and dark blue = local). While these suffice nicely (for now), he might be informed to read this thread and consider merging a future Cycle Map layer shield improvement scheme with Phil! Gold's (excellent so far, but clearly in the earlier, though now-better-known-as-it-is-being-more-widely-discussed phase) shield improvement scheme. Andy's contact information is info (at) gravitystorm (dot) co (dot) uk. Delighted to discuss this, SteveA California___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 15:15 -0400]: > As NE2 correctly points out, the number may not be the best guide. VA > secondaries are a lot more like CR systems in other states or the > secondary system in Missouri, in that the numbering doesn't carry > between counties/cities (e.g. there are probably almost* as many SR > 600s as there are counties in the state). My tagging has been to use > US:VA:secondary to avoid ambiguity, with separate relations for each > distinct secondary using is_in:county for disambiguation. Okay. If there aren't any strenuous objections from other Virginians on the list, I'll go with US:VA:Secondary for the secondary routes and won't render them if they're tagged US:VA. > Finally, if you get bored, I wouldn't mind seeing a more "commercial > map" style rendering option more akin to what Mapquest is doing - e.g. > using the US and I shields but just circles/lozenges for the (primary) > state routes and squares/rectangles for secondaries/CRs/Texas > weirdness. After what you've done so far that will probably be > child's play. :) Yes, part of what we're doing here is seeing just how far we can go with this approach, complete with all the one-off shields that roads around the country use. I think that doing a proper commercial style will actually require some additional tagging--I think we need a network_level tag akin to the admin boundaries' admin_level so data consumers don't have to know about every possible network value in every jurisdiction--and eventually I'll get around to writing up a proposal if no one beats me to it. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Absence is to love what wind is to fire. It extinguishes the small; enkindles the great. --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 13:36 -0400]: > On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > >Point taken. They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals > >choose to change the tagging. > > So you'll include network=US:US ref=17 Truck as acceptable tagging? > Since I'm local to said route. If you want to tag your local routes that way, I won't stop you. But I don't want to have to deal with multiple tagging standards and it seems to me that there's a consensus on this list that network=US:US:Truck, ref=17 is the better approach, so that's what I will focus on rendering. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- If you can read this, you're not illiterate. Good for you. -- Bumper sticker slogan --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: >> >> * Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]: >>> >>> On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. >>> >>> >>> You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep >>> the Loop in the ref tag. >> >> >> Point taken. They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals >> choose to change the tagging. > > > So you'll include network=US:US ref=17 Truck as acceptable tagging? Since > I'm local to said route. I'd probably go with network=US:US ref=17 modifier=Truck. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > Ah, okay. I'll set them up just like other > named-but-not-publically-numbered routes like the New Jersey Turnpike and > look for network US:OK, no ref, and whetever their name is. Just to avoid confusion with ODOT highways (numbered Oklahoma routes which may or may not also be named), perhaps US:OK:Turnpike or something similar? To my knowledge, none of the OTA highways have relations yet. > As NE2 said, FM and RM differ in the text on the image, though the > rendered shields are too small to be able to tell. We do have US:TX:Toll > and US:TX:RE also. PR is Park Road. Wow, that's a level of nitpick I hadn't expected (even in Texas which seems to have so many state highway networks that it wouldn't surprise me to find Your Mom 581 at some point); park roads and rec roads are two different networks there (I tested this: park road 3 and rec road 3 are nowhere near each other). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]: >> - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at >> all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are >> ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA: >> if the ref >= 600, or it has a letter in it, it's a secondary (except >> 785 and 895, which are signed primary). 1 <= 599 are primary. > > When we looked at the database, we saw some secondary routes tagged as > US:VA and some as US:VA:Secondary. Since there didn't seem to be any > overlap in the numbering, we chose to only look for the US:VA network and > render either a primary or secondary shield based on the number. I assume > you live in Virginia. What do you, as a resident, think of this rendering > choice? As NE2 correctly points out, the number may not be the best guide. VA secondaries are a lot more like CR systems in other states or the secondary system in Missouri, in that the numbering doesn't carry between counties/cities (e.g. there are probably almost* as many SR 600s as there are counties in the state). My tagging has been to use US:VA:secondary to avoid ambiguity, with separate relations for each distinct secondary using is_in:county for disambiguation. * almost because technically Henrico and Arlington counties maintain their own "secondaries," although I think Henrico signs its CRs using VDOT secondary shields. > Separately, Mapnik ought to be using the fallback shields when it doesn't > place one of our shields. It might be getting confused by the presence of > the US:VA:secondary route even though there aren't any shields for it. > I'll look into it. Cool. >> - The US 460 business route doesn't seem to be getting shields. > > We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business. > It probably isn't tagged that way. Once it is, it'll show up. Yeah, probably. When the database is live again I'll look into it. >> I-26 in TN seems to be missing: >> http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=11&lat=36.35713&lon=-82.42503&layers=B0 > > The route relation has "I 26" in the ref tag. Once it's change to just > "26", it'll render properly (although it'll take until the next time we > run the cluster generating script after that change before it'll show up > in concurrencies). Ugh. When I wrote up http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_with_relations my specific intent was that the ref tag was supposed to be bare to avoid renderers needing to parse/grep a bunch of crap to get the part they need to use on a generic shield design. There's no good reason to overload ref in relations with information that is already specifiable in an unambiguous fashion using network and/or modifier. For example, something asinine like ref="15 Loop" is just silly, because (a) in the field it is actually "Loop 15" and internally it's "SL 15" (and on the official TX tourist map it's just a 15 in a hexagon, like spurs, which are numbered as part of the same system - much like RM/FM share the same numbering system internally and get a rectangle on the tourist map) and (b) the renderer will want to slap "15" on a generic "Texas Loop" shield, or maybe just a generic "non-primary-network" shield, without trying to guess what things aren't part of the route number. So if you want my advice - which I'm sure you don't :) - stick with what you're doing and don't cave to this "let many flowers bloom" tagging for relations philosophy. We have enough of that crap with way-based ref already, to the point that they've degenerated into a hideous, unmaintainable, uninterperable mess (that Mapquest gets anything useful out of it is a tribute to their herculean patience with mapper quirkiness); no need to perpetuate it with relations too. Finally, if you get bored, I wouldn't mind seeing a more "commercial map" style rendering option more akin to what Mapquest is doing - e.g. using the US and I shields but just circles/lozenges for the (primary) state routes and squares/rectangles for secondaries/CRs/Texas weirdness. After what you've done so far that will probably be child's play. :) Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually >> the same network) > > > Er no. On roadside assemblies the text "FARM ROAD" and "RANCH ROAD" appears, > and on green guide signs the shields have "FM" or "RM" up top. > http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/sfb/images/3-1_Types_Route_Sign_Mount.JPG That's like saying California US highways are different from US highways in other states because California still uses the old style sign. Ranch-to-Market and Farm-to-Market roads are another case of same network, different sign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm-to-market_road ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 12:07:57PM -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/3/2012 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. > > I'm not aware of any such routes in Chicago. Are you thinking of the > address numbers that are prominently posted on signs? That's all I can think of, and I'm in the metro area. Unless he's thinking of Chicago's portions of Cook County Highways, but those are spottily signed, even outside the city limits. -- Kristian M Zoerhoff pgpII63tvYSfq.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: * Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]: On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep the Loop in the ref tag. Point taken. They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals choose to change the tagging. So you'll include network=US:US ref=17 Truck as acceptable tagging? Since I'm local to said route. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 08:59 -0700]: > That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. I'm planning on looking at city routes after we sort out county routes. > And these edge cases (city routes and state secondary/supplemental > routes, especially oddball (Oregon) and extreme (Texas) cases) make for > great prepwork to render cycleway network trailblazers (which tend > towards obscenely diverse in much of the US). Rendering cycleway shields is a long-term idea I'd like to do. (I hadn't really been thinking about them until some point after I started working on the highway shields when I went hiking along part of the Northern Central Railroad Trail and saw that not only was it part of the East Coast Greenway, the East Coast Greenway had its own marker shield.) -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Je svacxvecxer. Lysperní jezeleni se vírnex vrtácxejí v mokrxavex. Vetcharxí hadrousxci jsou roztruchleni a selvy sysxtí tesknoskuhravex. -- Lewis Carroll, "Jabberwocky" --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]: > On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > >A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the > >subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might > >be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed > >to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. > > You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep > the Loop in the ref tag. Point taken. They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals choose to change the tagging. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- No, being mentioned on my website doesn't necessarily disqualify you from getting a government job. -- vees --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 09:36 -0700]: > "INDIANA" and possibly others would be more legible in a wider font. > There's still space on either side to accommodate the text. Only on the wide-format shields. On the narrower ones used for two-digit numbers, the name runs right to the edge. > If the FHWA fonts don't work out, you could always resort to a bitmap > font. That's a longer-term possibility. I'd like the shields to look good when scaled to any size, which is why the templates are all SVGs that get turned into PNGs only at the last possible moment. Bitmap fonts tend to look good at exactly one resolution, so I'd have to figure out a good way to dynamically choose the font characteristics based on the target rendering size. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- #define BITCOUNT(x) (((BX_(x) + (BX_(x) >> 4)) & 0x0f0f0f0f) % 255) #define BX_(x) ((x) - (((x) >> 1) & 0x)\ - (((x) >> 2) & 0x)\ - (((x) >> 3) & 0x)) /* Counts the number of bits in a word. */ --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 08:57 -0700]: > >> Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes > > > > Not currently supported. Can you point me at some information about > > these? > > I don't think there's been a real effort to tag these yet, the four in > Oregon I'm aware of are the Lewis & Clark Trail, Oregon Trail, > California (aka Applegate) Trail and the Oregon Outback Route. Each > of the first three seem to use their own trailblazers and may be > interstate in scope. The latter and newer routes use extremely large > trailblazers. > http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Oregon-Outback-Sign.jpg I've added those to the TODO list. I'll have to see if I can find example images for most of them, and the Oregon Outback Route's image may prove to be too much for my meager artistic ability. (I've mostly been working off of public domain images from Wikipedia.) > All of Oklahoma's turnpikes use identical trailblazers, the only part > that changes is the name on the top half of the roundel (in this case, > "Indian Nations"). > http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=OK20060731 Ah, okay. I'll set them up just like other named-but-not-publically-numbered routes like the New Jersey Turnpike and look for network US:OK, no ref, and whetever their name is. > FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually > the same network), LOOP, SPUR, NASA, Texas I all recognize. I don't > see TOLL or REC, and no idea what PR is... As NE2 said, FM and RM differ in the text on the image, though the rendered shields are too small to be able to tell. We do have US:TX:Toll and US:TX:RE also. PR is Park Road. As I said, most of them don't render at the moment (aside from the US:TX roads), but there are some ranch-to-market roads that show up, like here: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=30.4855&lon=-99.44341&layers=B0 > > I chose to treat the Old San Antonio Road as a member of the US:TX network > > with a ref of OSR. I can't remember if it renders that way at the moment. Ah. It does. http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=30.98139&lon=-96.2095&layers=B0 -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- The Macintosh mouse is really a three-button mouse, except they hid two of the buttons on the keyboard. -- Ted Nelson --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
Ngày 2012-04-03 5:17 AM, Phil! Gold viết: * Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]: Displaying concurrent shields in bunches is certainly an improvement over all the maps that just pick one shield to display, and they look like reassurance sign assemblies to boot. But it's still strange to see shields hanging off either side of a north-south stretch of road. [1] How does this compare? http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/cincinnati.png I opted to string three shields out in a row because I think that fits into the rendering better; most text is horizontal, so there's less chance for conflicts, plus three-shield reassurance signs almost always have them in a single row. I could probably be convinced to do it differently if enough people prefer the two-row rendering. I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful where the concurrency's shields happen to appear near a junction. Google Maps does that, but they space the shields apart somewhat. This is something that would probably look nice, but is difficult (possibly impossible) to do in Mapnik. I'll see what I can do and how it looks on the map. The two-row option looks better to me. But you're right, it'd probably lead to fewer shields on the map in urban areas. I like what Stamen did in their Terrain map. [1] Their shield placement appears to be powered by Skeletron somehow. [2] Better yet, two routes of the same network could share a vertically stretched shield, like on printed maps. I'm resistant to this idea. Part of our goal for this rendering was to make the map look like what's actually on the road signs. With only a couple exceptions that I know of[0], concurrencies are always signed with separate sheilds for each route. [0] The US 1/US 9 concurrency in New Jersey is signed as US 1-9, and the MD 2/MD 4 concurrency in Maryland is signed as MD 2-4. True, I just brought up the idea in case map real estate becomes an issue with larger sign assemblies. Ohio's and Kentucky's shields look perfect. How about replacing the words "INDIANA" and "ILLINOIS" with slightly larger "I N" and "I L" for readability? [2] [2] http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.68386&lon=-87.53913&layers=B0 Hm. Again, I'd prefer to match the reference signs as much as possible and leave it up to context to distinguish similar signs. (Maine and Massachusetts are close neighbors, for example, and have identical plain rectangular shields. And quite a few states use plain circular shields.) I did increase the size of the text on those two states. The 'L's in Illinois are a little more obvious now, though "Indiana" is still completely unreadable. I'll think about just putting the initials in (though it still might be a challenge to make it readable). "INDIANA" and possibly others would be more legible in a wider font. There's still space on either side to accommodate the text. If the FHWA fonts don't work out, you could always resort to a bitmap font. [3] The FHWA fonts' distinguishing features aren't discernible at that size anyways. There isn't anything we can do about neighboring states that use exactly the same shield, but at least that problem also exists on the ground. They asked for it! :-) [1] https://github.com/Citytracking/Terrain/ [2] https://github.com/migurski/Skeletron/ [3] http://speckyboy.com/2009/06/19/34-free-and-elegant-truetype-mini-pixel-fonts/ -- Minh Nguyen AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: > On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 08:17:16 AM Phil! Gold wrote: >> * Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]: >> >> > I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with >> > no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful >> > where the concurrency's shields happen to appear near a junction. >> > Google Maps does that, but they space the shields apart somewhat. >> >> This is something that would probably look nice, but is difficult >> (possibly impossible) to do in Mapnik. I'll see what I can do and how it >> looks on the map. >> > > I don't know if they use Mapnik, but I like the way Stamen places their > shields along concurrencies. e.g. > http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#15/39.7542/-86.0373 I don't know if it is Mapnik, but it behaves similarly. Look to the west a bit from your link. It appears that shields are not strictly ordered, so some can go missing from the display. For example, the Interstate shields are less-frequent at the link below. Zoom in another layer and the interstate shields are more-frequent, at the expense of the others. http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#14/39.6996/-86.1647 That's cool, and it's nice that we have the choice now between not-exactly-random-linear, or all-in-one-clustered. I can imagine other options in future like: - only render the most-important shield, but have it popup with the cluster on hover - make clusters smaller, and magnify on hover - other cooler ideas that you come up with Mapnik metawriters should make this possible right now if somebody wants to write a little code to do it. :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business. It probably isn't tagged that way. Once it is, it'll show up. Again, you mean "if", not "once". It's not the job of renderers to force a choice between equally-valid existing tagging choices. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. I'm not aware of any such routes in Chicago. Are you thinking of the address numbers that are prominently posted on signs? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]: > - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at > all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are > ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA: > if the ref >= 600, or it has a letter in it, it's a secondary (except > 785 and 895, which are signed primary). 1 <= 599 are primary. When we looked at the database, we saw some secondary routes tagged as US:VA and some as US:VA:Secondary. Since there didn't seem to be any overlap in the numbering, we chose to only look for the US:VA network and render either a primary or secondary shield based on the number. I assume you live in Virginia. What do you, as a resident, think of this rendering choice? Separately, Mapnik ought to be using the fallback shields when it doesn't place one of our shields. It might be getting confused by the presence of the US:VA:secondary route even though there aren't any shields for it. I'll look into it. > - The US 460 business route doesn't seem to be getting shields. We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business. It probably isn't tagged that way. Once it is, it'll show up. > Also, a more general comment - I think concurrencies might look better > stacked vertically in some circumstances... you'd have to have some > logic about the underlying direction of the way to make that happen, > but vertical stacking would look nicer on N-S ways I think. Someone else had a similar comment. I'm pondering ways of matching the major axis of the shield clustering to the general direction of the way. I don't think I can get this perfect in all circumstances: without some alteration to mapnik's code, I think the best I can do is to get the overall orientation of a way in its entirety. That will be good enough for a lot of cases, but if a way has a north-south section, then a curve, then an east-west section, it's probably going to come out with a diagonal orientation. I'm going to do some test renderings and see how good I can make it look. > I-26 in TN seems to be missing: > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=11&lat=36.35713&lon=-82.42503&layers=B0 The route relation has "I 26" in the ref tag. Once it's change to just "26", it'll render properly (although it'll take until the next time we run the cluster generating script after that change before it'll show up in concurrencies). > Similarly, while the 4-way US multiplex over the "old bridge" in > Memphis is rendered fine, I-55 seems to be missing in both AR and TN > (but is OK in MS): > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=35.1354&lon=-90.07954&layers=B0 It's the same thing. The route relation for I-55 has "I 55" in the ref tag. > Looks great so far otherwise - keep up the good work! Thanks! -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- If you employ people as advisors, listen to their advice. -- Evil Overlord's Handbook, entry 17 --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually the same network) Er no. On roadside assemblies the text "FARM ROAD" and "RANCH ROAD" appears, and on green guide signs the shields have "FM" or "RM" up top. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/sfb/images/3-1_Types_Route_Sign_Mount.JPG ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: >> >> A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the >> subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might >> be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed >> to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. > > > You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep the Loop > in the ref tag. This would be inconsistent with the rest of the country, within it's own state, and the documentation if it's not changed. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > The edge cases are an opportunity for we, as a community, to get it > right. There are many many more signed routes that will be interesting > to one or more groups, as long as we have a reasonable way to tag > them. That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. And these edge cases (city routes and state secondary/supplemental routes, especially oddball (Oregon) and extreme (Texas) cases) make for great prepwork to render cycleway network trailblazers (which tend towards obscenely diverse in much of the US). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 07:21 -0700]: >> Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out, >> such as Missouri Secondary State Highways > > Someone seems to have made route relations for a lot of these already, > with a network of US:MO:Supplemental, so that's what I chose to key off > of. > >> Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes > > Not currently supported. Can you point me at some information about > these? I don't think there's been a real effort to tag these yet, the four in Oregon I'm aware of are the Lewis & Clark Trail, Oregon Trail, California (aka Applegate) Trail and the Oregon Outback Route. Each of the first three seem to use their own trailblazers and may be interstate in scope. The latter and newer routes use extremely large trailblazers. http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Oregon-Outback-Sign.jpg >> Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike > > There's support for the Kansas Turnpike, but it's not rendered because the > route relation doesn't have a network on it. (I don't trust every named > highway with its own shield to have a globally unique name, so I key off > the network, which in most cases I expect to be the same as the main state > network.) I'll have to add the Chikasaw Turnpike; I don't see any > information about shields for the other Oklahoma turnpikes on Wikipedia. Kansas Turnpike (there's only one) uses the KTA shield universally, often in conjunction with, but usually in absence of, I 35 signage. Oklahoma (like Kansas) has a toll and non-toll highway network, and they don't overlap (with the exception of I 44, which is dual signed with the Turner Turnpike and Rogers Turnpike; guide signs leaving the Turner Turnpike instruct drivers to "take I 44 to the Rogers Turnpike to Joplin" more or less treating I 44 as nonexistent on the turnpike lengths, despite being dual signed!). All of Oklahoma's turnpikes use identical trailblazers, the only part that changes is the name on the top half of the roundel (in this case, "Indian Nations"). http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=OK20060731 >> or the 7 state highway networks in Texas that aren't "Texas"... > > Mostly I've followed the networks already in use: US:TX, US:TX:LOOP, > US:TX:SPUR, US:TX:FM, US:TX:RM, US:TX:FM:Business, US:TX:NASA, US:TX:PR, > some others. A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the > subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might > be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed > to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually the same network), LOOP, SPUR, NASA, Texas I all recognize. I don't see TOLL or REC, and no idea what PR is... Cool on handling such a complex network well. > I chose to treat the Old San Antonio Road as a member of the US:TX network > with a ref of OSR. I can't remember if it renders that way at the moment. I would be inclined to do the same (despite the nonstandard reference before network signs that that route uses). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. You mean *if* the ref is changed. Perhaps the locals want to keep the Loop in the ref tag. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 10:54 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote: I don't know if they use Mapnik, but I like the way Stamen places their shields along concurrencies. e.g. http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#15/39.7542/-86.0373 The problem with this one is that only one shield shows up when the two shields would be drawn on top of each other. Putting all the shields right next to each other avoids this. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out, > such as Missouri Secondary State Highways, Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma > State Tour Routes, Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike, or the 7 state highway > networks in Texas that aren't "Texas"... The edge cases are an opportunity for we, as a community, to get it right. There are many many more signed routes that will be interesting to one or more groups, as long as we have a reasonable way to tag them. I hope that there will be a way to request / provide icons for specialty routes so that those with interest and with expertise can provide patches. As it stands now, Phil has done a great job of making this work. The starting case of I + US is fantastic. Makes me think I should get some more of the Canadian shields sorted out. :-) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 07:23 -0700]: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Alexander Jones wrote: > > Rosecrans is technically no longer a state highway, as CA 209 was > > decommissioned in 2003. I could take another look at 75 when the database is > > editable again. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but only routes with relations render with > shields, right? Right. If a way has a ref tag but is not in a route relation, it gets an "old-style" shield that looks the same as it would be on the main OSM rendering. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Have you never thought as you read that months may lie between any pair of words? -- Gene Wolfe --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 07:21 -0700]: > Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out, > such as Missouri Secondary State Highways Someone seems to have made route relations for a lot of these already, with a network of US:MO:Supplemental, so that's what I chose to key off of. > Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes Not currently supported. Can you point me at some information about these? > Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike There's support for the Kansas Turnpike, but it's not rendered because the route relation doesn't have a network on it. (I don't trust every named highway with its own shield to have a globally unique name, so I key off the network, which in most cases I expect to be the same as the main state network.) I'll have to add the Chikasaw Turnpike; I don't see any information about shields for the other Oklahoma turnpikes on Wikipedia. > or the 7 state highway networks in Texas that aren't "Texas"... Mostly I've followed the networks already in use: US:TX, US:TX:LOOP, US:TX:SPUR, US:TX:FM, US:TX:RM, US:TX:FM:Business, US:TX:NASA, US:TX:PR, some others. A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly. I chose to treat the Old San Antonio Road as a member of the US:TX network with a ref of OSR. I can't remember if it renders that way at the moment. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- "Meow" translates as, "Come here. I want to ignore you." --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 08:17:16 AM Phil! Gold wrote: > * Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]: > > > I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with > > no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful > > where the concurrency's shields happen to appear near a junction. > > Google Maps does that, but they space the shields apart somewhat. > > This is something that would probably look nice, but is difficult > (possibly impossible) to do in Mapnik. I'll see what I can do and how it > looks on the map. > I don't know if they use Mapnik, but I like the way Stamen places their shields along concurrencies. e.g. http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#15/39.7542/-86.0373 Your current work is awesome! ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/3/2012 10:21 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA: if the ref>= 600, or it has a letter in it, it's a secondary (except 785 and 895, which are signed primary). 1<= 599 are primary. 785 isn't signed at all. The 895 near Richmond is primary, but there are also secondary 895s. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Alexander Jones wrote: >> And oddly, in the San Diego area, "CA 209" and "CA 75" (Point Loma >> and Coronado, respectively) don't render with your newer shields, but >> the old style Mapnik shields. Even in "read only mode" I am unable >> coax JOSM to "read only" so I can't see what these (S 21, CA 209 and >> CA 75) tags are. It may be that they are tagged in a wrong or odd >> way, it may be that you aren't catching a certain case of things, I'm >> not sure. > > Rosecrans is technically no longer a state highway, as CA 209 was > decommissioned in 2003. I could take another look at 75 when the database is > editable again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but only routes with relations render with shields, right? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > * CrystalWalrein [2012-04-02 15:45 -0700]: >> For areas in New Jersey, when I look at this rendering, I get county shields >> for all 500-series roads, but no shields are shown for 600-series roads >> anywhere. >> >> The formatting for county route relations in New Jersey is >> 'network="US:NJ:[county name]"' for all county routes that are not part of >> the statewide system (for which 'network="US:NJ:CR"' is used). > > This is a known problem and more or less falls under "we're not really > doing county roads yet". We render the pentagon for routes with the > network US:NJ:CR, but there's no rendering yet for US:NJ:. That's > partly because I haven't sorted through the counties to separate out the > ones that don't use the blue pentagon, and partly because handling a lot > of differently-named but having-very-similar-shields networks would be > kind of a pain with our current setup, so I need to write some more code > to help with that. Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out, such as Missouri Secondary State Highways, Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes, Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike, or the 7 state highway networks in Texas that aren't "Texas"... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > Here's something that might be a diversion while you wait for the database > to allow editing again. > > Richard Weait and I have been working on a rendering that uses route > relations to make individual shields that reflect what each state uses. > I've got a working prototype, and I'd like to get some feedback on it. > The server is a rather slow one sitting at my place behind a slow-ish DSL > connection, which means that it'll probably range from a little slow to > very slow indeed. I'm working on getting some better hosting for it. If > you're not yet deterred, I invite you to look at > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ . The code and source files are at > https://launchpad.net/osm-shields . Awesome! I definitely think this is the sort of thing that will bring in more North American mappers by making the map seem more familiar. I took a look around Blacksburg and just noted a couple of things (once all the pink frowny-faces went away): - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA: if the ref >= 600, or it has a letter in it, it's a secondary (except 785 and 895, which are signed primary). 1 <= 599 are primary. - The US 460 business route doesn't seem to be getting shields. URL for the area: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.19755&lon=-80.40427&layers=B0 Also, a more general comment - I think concurrencies might look better stacked vertically in some circumstances... you'd have to have some logic about the underlying direction of the way to make that happen, but vertical stacking would look nicer on N-S ways I think. Compare: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.13887&lon=-80.34525&layers=B0 and http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=37.19653&lon=-80.22878&layers=B0 Other oddities: I-26 in TN seems to be missing: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=11&lat=36.35713&lon=-82.42503&layers=B0 (It also seems to be missing in NC... maybe the relation got accidentally nuked? I can't even get the data view at OSM to work at the moment...) Similarly, while the 4-way US multiplex over the "old bridge" in Memphis is rendered fine, I-55 seems to be missing in both AR and TN (but is OK in MS): http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14&lat=35.1354&lon=-90.07954&layers=B0 Looks great so far otherwise - keep up the good work! Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Imports] Addition of building footprints in selected U.S. and Canadian cities
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kate Chapman wrote: > I personally find [building footprints] makes the map far more usable > for adding other information. > the coastal-swath NOAA LIDAR footprints imported is MASS are wonderful. (Especially in Stamen watercolor tiles, but also in TopOSM render too. ) A Buildings layer is most useful if they're ubiquitous, not here-and-there when interesting. As GPS mapping of individual houses is not accurate without professional differential GPS -- 10m accuracy means i can't be sure which corner of my house is which ! -- the choices are bulk imports or tracing compatible imagery. When NOAA or a state has paid for LIDAR scans and auto vector conversion, using that is efficient, and we can better use volunteers to add value -- e.g. naming stores, as Kate says -- rather than doing rote manual vector extraction from imagery. There's quite enough for volunteers who *want* to do manual vector extraction from imagery to do without tracing every darned house and barn by hand! -- Bill @n1vux bill.n1...@gmail.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-02 14:34 -0400]: > A total of *two* relations have network=US:US:Business, vs. 707 with > network=US:US and modifier=Business. Yes, I know I had major > influence in that, but that was months ago. There's also one US:OR:Business (which also has modifier=Business), one US:CA:BUSINESS, and one US:I:BUSINESS:SPUR (which surprised me; I wasn't expecting to see that in the database). Even though the last time this was discussed in detail a couple people said they preferred using US:US:BUS, there are no instances of that in the current database. It's possible they used to exist but have been since changed, but I can't tell that one way or the other. That notwithstanding, I've gone back and looked through all the past discussions about route relation networks that I can find and it seems that almost everyone who expresses a preference prefers to view routes with modifiers as subsets of the main network and put the modifier in the network tag. With my "data consumer" hat on, I'm inclined to agree: although there are drawbacks to both approaches, I feel there are fewer inherent in the network-with-modifiers way. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Volt egy brilló's, a csuszbugó Gimbelt és gált távlengibe, Minden mimicre purrogó, Mómája ingibe. -- Lewis Carroll, "Jabberwocky" --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]: > Displaying concurrent shields in bunches is certainly an improvement > over all the maps that just pick one shield to display, and they > look like reassurance sign assemblies to boot. But it's still > strange to see shields hanging off either side of a north-south > stretch of road. [1] How does this compare? http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/cincinnati.png I opted to string three shields out in a row because I think that fits into the rendering better; most text is horizontal, so there's less chance for conflicts, plus three-shield reassurance signs almost always have them in a single row. I could probably be convinced to do it differently if enough people prefer the two-row rendering. > I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with > no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful > where the concurrency's shields happen to appear near a junction. > Google Maps does that, but they space the shields apart somewhat. This is something that would probably look nice, but is difficult (possibly impossible) to do in Mapnik. I'll see what I can do and how it looks on the map. > Better yet, two routes of the same network could share a vertically > stretched shield, like on printed maps. I'm resistant to this idea. Part of our goal for this rendering was to make the map look like what's actually on the road signs. With only a couple exceptions that I know of[0], concurrencies are always signed with separate sheilds for each route. > Ohio's and Kentucky's shields look perfect. How about replacing the > words "INDIANA" and "ILLINOIS" with slightly larger "I N" and "I L" > for readability? [2] > [2] > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.68386&lon=-87.53913&layers=B0 Hm. Again, I'd prefer to match the reference signs as much as possible and leave it up to context to distinguish similar signs. (Maine and Massachusetts are close neighbors, for example, and have identical plain rectangular shields. And quite a few states use plain circular shields.) I did increase the size of the text on those two states. The 'L's in Illinois are a little more obvious now, though "Indiana" is still completely unreadable. I'll think about just putting the initials in (though it still might be a challenge to make it readable). [0] The US 1/US 9 concurrency in New Jersey is signed as US 1-9, and the MD 2/MD 4 concurrency in Maryland is signed as MD 2-4. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- The Alchemist's Guild is opposite the Gambler's Guild. Usually. Sometimes it's above it, or below it, or falling in bits around it. -- _Men at Arms_, Terry Pratchett --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2012-04-01
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-04-01 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-04-01/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2012-04-01 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
stevea wrote: > Most specific shields in California look "good and familiar," as you > make correct distinctions between Interstates and state routes. > However, "county routes" (designated by a "regional letter" and a > number, such as "S 21") are not rendered with proper shields at all. > This is a critical component for many areas. You probably should know that I've been adding the S21 tags to Old Highway 101. I could add a route relation for it if needed. > And oddly, in the San Diego area, "CA 209" and "CA 75" (Point Loma > and Coronado, respectively) don't render with your newer shields, but > the old style Mapnik shields. Even in "read only mode" I am unable > coax JOSM to "read only" so I can't see what these (S 21, CA 209 and > CA 75) tags are. It may be that they are tagged in a wrong or odd > way, it may be that you aren't catching a certain case of things, I'm > not sure. Rosecrans is technically no longer a state highway, as CA 209 was decommissioned in 2003. I could take another look at 75 when the database is editable again. PS Shouldn't Palomar Airport Road be S12? -Alexander ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
* CrystalWalrein [2012-04-02 15:45 -0700]: > For areas in New Jersey, when I look at this rendering, I get county shields > for all 500-series roads, but no shields are shown for 600-series roads > anywhere. > > The formatting for county route relations in New Jersey is > 'network="US:NJ:[county name]"' for all county routes that are not part of > the statewide system (for which 'network="US:NJ:CR"' is used). This is a known problem and more or less falls under "we're not really doing county roads yet". We render the pentagon for routes with the network US:NJ:CR, but there's no rendering yet for US:NJ:. That's partly because I haven't sorted through the counties to separate out the ones that don't use the blue pentagon, and partly because handling a lot of differently-named but having-very-similar-shields networks would be kind of a pain with our current setup, so I need to write some more code to help with that. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- I think... I think it's in my basement... Let me go upstairs and check. -- Escher --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
Ngày 2012-04-02 5:25 AM, Phil! Gold viết: There are actually two shield styles we have. There's the cutout-style that you see by default and another style you can switch to that more closely resembles the roadside reassurance signs for the routes. The cutouts will probably load faster--more of them have been rendered already--but please take a look at the other one, too; I'd like to know which one people prefer. Thank you for using cutout-style shields. They look great! I'm not an expert on every state, so I'm particularly interested in whether things look good to the natives of each state and, if not, what could make them look better. Displaying concurrent shields in bunches is certainly an improvement over all the maps that just pick one shield to display, and they look like reassurance sign assemblies to boot. But it's still strange to see shields hanging off either side of a north-south stretch of road. [1] I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful where the concurrency's shields happen to appear near a junction. Google Maps does that, but they space the shields apart somewhat. Better yet, two routes of the same network could share a vertically stretched shield, like on printed maps. So US 25/42 would look like this, if you'll pardon the crude ASCII art: _vv_ )25( ( 42 ) \/ Ohio's and Kentucky's shields look perfect. How about replacing the words "INDIANA" and "ILLINOIS" with slightly larger "I N" and "I L" for readability? [2] [1] http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/cutouts/15/8690/12512.png [2] http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.68386&lon=-87.53913&layers=B0 -- Minh Nguyen AIM: trycom2000; Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Highway Shield Rendering
Posting a cc of this to talk-us in case others can't download data in while OSM is in read-only mode: try THIS! Wbat version of JOSM are you using? I'm having no problem using that plugin in v5159. Ah, thank you so much, James. I was using 5088, upgrading to 5159 did it. Dang, that's a fast download! Now I really mean it: So awesome. I don't know how widely known using "mirrored_download" plugin is, but this is exactly what I meant when I said "stay communicative." Wiki: good. Latest version: good. Talking to each other on talk-us: good. Peace and thanks yet again! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
