Thanks for the reply Martijn. There is a lot of talk about capture unsigned/signed information in the relation. And I've read some proposals of adding to the role field--delimiting values by a pipe or semi-colon. I think that if there is interest to capture information about a way/node's relationship (i.e., signed or unsigned, direction, etc ) to the relation it is a member of, then why not either modify the role data type to capture tags (hstore) or add another field to the table of a relations' members to capture such information (hstore, again)?
I acknowledge that many applications depend on the existing OSM data model. Changing the data type of existing fields would cause issues in existing applications. That said, I think it may be worth exploring *adding* a field to the existing data model. After all we are talking about adding information to existing relations about highway direction and whether or not they are signed. Something I've been thinking about while following these conversations. Best, Kristen --- OSM Profile → http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martijn van Exel Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:04 PM To: Kam, Kristen -(p) Cc: James Mast; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways. 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_S >> tates 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/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
