Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not really a model for tags on members.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) <krist...@telenav.com> wrote: > Hi All: > > > > I have a question: Why can’t there be member tag values? There are tag > values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought. > > > > Best, > > > > Kristen > > > > --- > > > > OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK > > > > From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM > To: Martijn van Exel > Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State > highways. > > > > Martijn, > > How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for > completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info > into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep the > direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the > relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the > route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a > dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk > on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in > one piece. > > If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use > the ";" or "," instead? I could see the ";" working just as good as the > "|". > > I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead > of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one > covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag. Annoying and easily > broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact > same route on some segments. > > -James > >> From: m...@rtijn.org >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 >> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com >> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State >> highways. >> >> Hi James, >> >> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense >> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging >> practice to use role:signed = yes/no? >> >> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you >> can add a paragraph to the wiki page >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States >> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we >> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;) >> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg >> >> Best >> Martijn >> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a >> > route >> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have >> > segments that are hidden. >> > >> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on >> > I-94 >> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both >> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said >> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till >> > when >> > they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the >> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This >> > would >> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields. >> > They >> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields >> > along that way. >> > >> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag >> > in >> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an >> > example). >> > >> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two >> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden? >> > >> > -James >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-us mailing list >> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ >> http://openstreetmap.us/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
