Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think to do it. That's why I suggested doing the ";" or "|" because data consumers already know how to deal with the ";" at least in the ref tags on normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = north:unsigned).
-James > From: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State > highways. > To: [email protected] > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > My idea was to just use > > role=north/east/south/west > > for the regularly signposted sections and > > role=north/east/south/west > role:signed=no > > for the hidden sections. > > It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in > terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in > check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance. > > > > > 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 follow whatever practice is most common for more > specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and > access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make > the most sense. > > > > > 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. > > I agree 100%. > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://openstreetmap.us/
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
