> On Nov 28, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > > On 11/27/14 6:48 PM, johnw wrote: >> I think having it on the relation is a great idea, especially since adding >> the tags to all the road segments sounds like an insane amount of tagging . >> Is this something that we should ask Phil to create a formal proposal page >> for the tags, so we can start adding symbol key values to relations? I think >> the hard thing is to actually get things tagged. >> > the basic scheme doesn't require anything new or unusual in > route relation tagging, just care and consistency.
I look forward to seeing his RFC page then ^_^ >> >> The only suggestion I have is that we make it able to handle two or three - >> as putting the ref in a symbol is good, but we should be able to add a >> second one as well, to cover different situations where the relation is part >> of an even larger system (like the California scenic highway system, or >> similar.) - or would that just be another single icon applied to a different >> relation (or super-relation) that shares some of the segments, and they just >> both get their single symbol rendered? In some cases the symbol rendered >> would not need to use the ref from the road. > well, multiple relations are handled decently in Phil's system. > > here is an example from Albany & Rensselaer NY: > > http://bl.ocks.org/ToeBee/raw/6119134/#14/42.6351/-73.7394 > <http://bl.ocks.org/ToeBee/raw/6119134/#14/42.6351/-73.7394> > > where you can see interstate shields, US highway shields, > NY state highway shields, and county route shields (the > blue pentagonal shields). note the primary of US 9 & US 20; > there is a relation for each of those highways and Phil's code > handles the case well. > > more specialized shields are handled as well; here is > an example of a NY State parkway system shield on > the Taconic State Parkway: > > http://bl.ocks.org/ToeBee/raw/6119134/#15/42.2525/-73.6169 > <http://bl.ocks.org/ToeBee/raw/6119134/#15/42.2525/-73.6169> > > richard That looks really good. Some graphic designers need to remake the shields for icon size (bigger lettering, details ignored), but the system of putting on the roads looks great. My question about multiple relations was about roads that would have more than one “symbol.” Maybe i didn’t see it,b ut all of thsoe roads seemed to have 1 shield apiece, but I’m wondering about roads that would need multiple shields next to each other. For example, State Highway 163 through downtown San Diego is part of the California highway system (so it gets a green ovalish “163” symbol), and is part of the CA scenic road system - so it would also get the small yellow flower icon as well. It is common to find the symbol on printed on city and county maps, so having it display at high zoom levels (~15 and above?) along with the road shield would be a good way to render them. I’m not so interested in the scenic route, but it was an example I could think of where a road is part of another, larger network that is publicly displayed and mapped beyond it’s ref number (it’s not some piece of GIS data hidden from the public, but something openly signed and mapped already by others). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_163 So I suggest there be a method to display additional symbols that have to do with the route’s membership in superrelations in some manner. As a next step, phil’s work looks great! Javbw > -- > rwe...@averillpark.net <mailto:rwe...@averillpark.net> > Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting > OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux > Java - Web Applications - Search > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
