Another update on this: following James's earlier suggestion that we needed editor support for the n/s/e/w roles with way direction reversal and (in the case of JOSM) the relation editor, I got some dev time at Telenav to get the necessary JOSM patches done. I already submitted the iD patch myself (which should be live by now).
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Martijn van Exel <[email protected]> wrote: > 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) <[email protected]> > 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:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM >> To: Martijn van Exel >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> >> 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: [email protected] >>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 >>> To: [email protected] >>> CC: [email protected] >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Martijn van Exel >>> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ >>> http://openstreetmap.us/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-us mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.us/ -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
