Using your example, the network tag should say "US:US:Business" Alexander
Michal Migurski wrote: > On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: >> >>> I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the >>> intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly >>> different approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier tags. >>> I can standardize the US:US and US:I networks along with US:CA where I >>> live, but I should hold off on attempting to overfit other states' >>> network tags. >> >> >> Here's the newest: >> http://mike.teczno.com/img/OSM-Extracted-Routes-changes-2.csv.zip >> >> There are 5,828 changes now. I have left the network tags alone, >> generally. Most changes are focused on the ref and modifier tags. > > I'm looking for advice & feedback. > > I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five changesets: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612825 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612736 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13613023 > > Offlist, I've been talking to NE2 about the edits, and he pointed out this > morning that they negatively affect shield rendering on Aperiodic: > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.7166&lon=-77.79472&layers=B > > "Whereas formerly relations with network=US:US and the modifier in the ref > failed somewhat gracefully if a bit pigheadedly (by not displaying shields > at all), they now show up incorrectly as mainline routes." - NE2 > > NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving > the route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g. > turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to > the supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should be > correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the > route number, without any network information." > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html > > I'm looking for guidance on this changeset, with the intent of making > route relation information in the US internally consistent. I can simply > revert it, but I wasn't happy with the state of relation tags before and > I'll continue to look for ways to make them consistent nationally. I can > apply a new changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information in > the modifier tags to the ref tags, but this feels incorrect. I can apply > an alternative changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information > to the *network* tags (another recommendation from the Aperiodic tagging > guideline), but previous conversations about this change led me to believe > that messing with the network tags too much would be a Bad Idea. > > For those of you with an interest in the route relations, what do you > think is the correct next move here? > > NE2, I've been talking to you offlist but I hope you jump in here. > > -mike. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > michal migurski- [email protected] > 415.558.1610 _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
