Hi all, My colleague Olivia will respond more in depth with some suggestions based on your feedback. Thanks for giving our team's ideas some thought. In the meantime, as I was writing a post about the new version of MapRoulette, I thought I'd make a Challenge for misspelled Trans-Canada Highway names. Please find it here: http://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/2955 . There's only a little over 200 tasks, so that should be an easy thing to fix together. The Challenge is based on this Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/xoW -- it's pretty easy to make your own Challenges based on your own Overpass queries or GeoJSON files. The diary post explaining MapRoulette is here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/43596 Thanks, -- Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, at 07:13, Begin Daniel wrote: > Andrew, Je ne crois pas que le fait que ces ‘contributeurs’ soient > Roumains, Javanais ou Américains soit à considérer. Ils nous ont > consultés avant de faire la modification et c’est parfait. Cependant, > je suis entièrement en accord avec ta réponse - laissez ça à la > communauté canadienne!> > (I do not believe that the fact these ‘contributors’ are Romanians, > Javanese or Americans is to be considered. They consulted us before > making the change and it's perfect. However, I fully agree with your > answer - leave that to the Canadian community!-)> > Sent from Mail[1] for Windows 10 > > > *From:* Andrew Lester <a-les...@shaw.ca> *Sent:* Monday, March 26, > 2018 1:35:56 PM *To:* Olivia Robu - (p) *Cc:* talk-ca *Subject:* Re: > [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research> > While standardization may be nice, it often won't be possible even > within a single country. As has already been discussed, there are > differing conventions in different provinces, so please don't try to > apply a single plan to all provinces. How the TCH is handled in OSM > will vary depending on the province.> > For example, in BC (and some other western provinces), the TCH carries > the 1 ref. In some places where other ref'ed highways coincide with > the TCH, the ref is recorded as "ref=1;19", for example. There are > places within cities where the TCH runs on city roads with different > names (e.g. Douglas Street in Victoria), so those ways are named with > the local name and the TCH name is recorded in the alt_name or > nat_name tag (a separate argument is which one of these to use). An > alternate name should never be added to the primary name in brackets > like proposed. That's exactly what the alt_name (and similar) tags are > for. There are also many places where Trans-Canada Highway is the > official local name of the road, like most of the highway in BC.> > As for the correct spelling of the TCH, I think it would be fairly > uncontroversial to standardize the name to "Trans-Canada Highway" or > "Route Transcanadienne" where it's appropriate to use the TCH name, > because those are the official spellings. Any variants can be > considered errors.> > As for varying highway classifications, this is correct and to be > expected. Unlike the US interstate system, the Trans-Canada Highway > network varies in construction and importance all across the country, > so the classification can't be standardized to just motorway or trunk. > There are sections where primary is the most appropriate, and possibly > even secondary in some places. Just on Vancouver Island alone, the > roads designated as the TCH vary from a six-lane motorway all the way > down to a two-lane effectively-tertiary road.> > Since there will need to be a lot of local knowledge required for such > a project, I strongly recommend that this project not be undertaken by > Telenav. This is the kind of work that Canadians should be doing, > being the most familiar with the on-the-ground situation which will > dictate how the highway is handled in each province. The numerous past > issues with Telenav's contributions is also a factor that can't be > ignored. Does it really make sense for a team of Romanians with a > history of questionable decisions to be making sweeping changes to the > Canadian national highway network? At least they've brought a proposal > to the community this time rather than just push forward with a faulty > plan like they have in the past. I'm still cleaning up after previous > Telenav projects in my area that added countless non-existent turn > restrictions and names and also removed valid data.> > Andrew > Victoria, BC, Canada > > > *From: *"Olivia Robu - (p)" <olivia.r...@telenav.com> > *To: *"talk-ca" <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org> > *Sent: *Monday, March 26, 2018 4:20:16 AM > *Subject: *[Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research > > Hello, > The Telenav Map team has done some research on the status of the ways > and relations of Trans-Canada Highway.> Here are some conclusions from this > research: > * The highway is formed from 30 routes; > * Every route has different names for the name tag, such as: street > names, other routes names or Trans-Canada highway name in different > forms; > * The issue above is repeating for the ref tag; > * The name of Trans-Canada highway has more than one form (Trans- > Canada Highway, TransCanada Highway, Trans Canada Highway, etc); > * Another issue is the variety of names in other tags related to it > (such as: name:en, name:fr, alt_name, alt_name:en, alt_name:fr, > nat_name); > * There are some routes that don’t have a route name only ref (5 > routes); > * There are some routes that overlap: > * in Manitoba: - PTH 1 (MB Trans-Canada Highway) and Trans-Canada > Highway (Super);> - > Yellowhead > Highway and PTH > 16 (MB Trans- > Canada > Highway); > * in Alberta: Trans-Canada Highway (AB) and Trans-Canada Highway > (Super); > * in British Columbia: - Trans-Canada Highway (BC, Super) and Trans- > Canada Highway; > * About 90% of these routes are broken; > * About 80% of these routes have highway value flip flop (motorway, > trunk, primary);> > We propose to make some improvements to standardize all the routes. We > would like to get your thoughts and feedback on the following > questions: > * What is the correct form for the name that appears in the way name > tag? For example: “Highway 417” is part of Trans-Canada Highway and > has the name value tag “Highway 417”. To resolve this issue, we > would need to standardize the ways’ name tag for all the provinces. > The question is, should we modify the way names in to “Trans-Canada > Highway”, or should we insert the name “Trans-Canada Highway” at > the end of the name, like this: “Highway 417 (Trans-Canada > Highway)”, or should we leave it like it is? > * Another issue is related to the official name of the highway. > According to our research the official name for Trans-Canada > Highway is “Trans-Canada Highway”. In our research we have found > several forms of this name: TransCanada Highway, Trans Canada > Highway, etc. Should we change all the names to “Trans-Canada > Highway”? > * Another question is related to the priority of the names in the > name value tag and also for the ref tag. If we have a way that has > a street name (“Old Highway 16” or “North York River Road”) and two > routes that overlap (ex: Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 11). What > is the name and the ref that should appear in the way name tag and > ref tag? > * In case of overlapping identical routes (ex: in Manitoba there is > two routes for Trans-Canada Highway). What should be the best > approach? > * In case of highway value flip flop (motorway, trunk, primary), > there are several segments like this outside the cities (ex.: Route > “Ontario Highway 17 (Blind River to North Bay) (ID 3739829)”, or > Route “Trans Canada Highway 104” (ID 1732797)). For areas outside > the cities we propose to change the highway value into > motorway/trunk. What do you think about this issue?> > We think that one approach to resolve the first problem could be to > add “Trans-Canada Highway” or “Highway 417 (Trans-Canada Highway)” to > the way name for all the routes, and the ref number correspondent to > each route that forms the Trans-Canada Highway.> > We look forward to hearing your feedback and hope to improve the > situation together.> > Here is the link to github ticket that we created: > https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/57> > Regards, > Olivia Robu > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > _________________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca Links: 1. https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
