I did create a MapRoulette challenge to review these named junction nodes for the United States just now. See https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462 <https://maproulette.org/mr3/challenge/3253/task/5881462>. If you find it useful I’d be happy to create one for Canada as well. Or show you how you can do it yourself.
Martijn > On Nov 6, 2018, at 11:43 AM, Andrew Lester <[email protected]> wrote: > > I just cleaned up a handful of junctions in the western provinces where refs > were in the name tag, destination was in the name on the junction in addition > to the link way, etc. Running an Overpass query for all of Canada > (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DrL) now shows that there are almost 2000 of > these in Ontario and Quebec, 2 in Nova Scotia, and 1 in Newfoundland. The > last 3 look legitimate, but a quick scan of the ones in Ontario and Quebec > shows that most are clear tagging-for-the-renderer. In a few test cases, the > destinations are already on the link ways, so there's no need for the > destination to be in the name on the junction nodes. > > Does anyone have a good reason for keeping these as they are? My opinion is > that these should all have the names removed when it's clearly the > destination, and that this destination info should be added to the link way > if it isn't already. > > Andrew Lester > Victoria, BC > > From: "Martijn van Exel" <[email protected]> > To: "talk-ca" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:56:23 AM > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination > > So apparently this is pretty common practice in Quebec. There are 755 > junction nodes that have name tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Dr9. > Other provinces don't have nearly that many. > > The user breakdown for latest edit on those nodes doesn't really surface one > mapper who consistently added these tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Drf > > I'm inclined to leave it to the local Quebec community to say something more > definitive about what, if anything, needs to be done with these name tags... > I'm happy to set up a MapRoulette challenge to enable us to systematically > look at these nodes.. > > Best, > -- > Martijn van Exel > [email protected] > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 08:33, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these > > situations? I could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can > > look at them together and remove the name on nodes where it's not > > appropriate / redundant. > > > > I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass. > > -- > > Martijn van Exel > > [email protected] > > > > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > > > Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the > > > junction node sounds appropriate. > > > > > > While we're at it, the service road > > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on > > > any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist? > > > > > > --Jarek > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Je disais précédemment > > > > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de > > > > > sorties > > > > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km > > > > > 15). > > > > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15) > > > > > > > > > > > > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. > > > > Sur la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pierre > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-ca mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
