Kerry I'm not sure that I follow your drift here, Kerry. Can you elaborate about the Miracle Mile?
Peter :) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Kerry Irons <[email protected]>wrote: > All, > > > > If you look at the guidance in the US from FHWA and the MUTCD, all route > numbers are to used in signage. You never know who is using a given piece > of pavement by following which route number. Just because the locals might > call it “the Miracle Mile” doesn’t mean that is the appropriate choice for > shield priority. > > > > > > Kerry > > > > *From:* Peter Davies [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:53 PM > *To:* Tod Fitch > *Cc:* Kerry Irons; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric > Fischer > *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators > (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept > > > > Tod, > > > > I found a common stretch of CA 108 and CA 120 between Oakdale and Yosemite > Junction in Tuolumne County. I'm not sure if that's the double-banded > section you mention. > > > > As Eric Fischer said, there are some ways that carry two approximately > equal routes, and my suggestion was that they would both still feature in > the way ref tags, in this case "CA 108;CA 120" (which is in fact what OSM > currently has for these ways). I agree that there is no obvious precedence > order in this case other than "highest system, lowest number" (which is > again what OSM has at present). > > > > My suggestion was (and is) that if we need to have multiple refs, because > two or more routes are about equal, the "way refs" be listed in shield > posting order, starting with the top or left-most shield. Without going > there, we won't know if that is CA 108 or CA 120, or whether it varies. > Since both are about equal it probably doesn't matter, because (as you > say) both should probably be mentioned. > > > > My interest was more in what Shawn Quinn calls "rubbish numbers", such as > US and state route refs multi-banded on an interstate. I think he argues > that we need them all. I don't think that's in doubt, either. But do we > need them all to be listed in every way ref, or would it be sufficient to > have them in the relation refs, with the first listed shield(s) emphasized > in the way refs? > > > > I think the answer is already emerging. Way ref tags with complete lists > of overlapping secondary route designators are here to stay. Personally > I'm happy about this so long as the first signed route number(s), starting > from the top and/or left of the direction signs and route confirmation > signs, come first in the way ref lists (as they usually do in OSM already). > So, I 465 should be listed before US 31, or IN 67, say, as it's given > greater precedence in the signing. > > > > In other words, most people probably think that Interstate 465 is > Interstate 465, and not US 31 or IN 67. So we should list it first (as we > almost always do). Sound fair? > > > > Peter > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tod Fitch <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote: > > > > Kerry > > > > <snip> > > > > It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary > designators in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one is > presented first. We can easily ignore the less important numbers. But > without a way ref (i.e., using only relation refs, as has been suggested) > we have no way of knowing what is the most common route designator for that > specific way. > > > > Peter > > > > There may be no "most common route designator". A semi-local example: If I > am directing you east over Sonora Pass I'll tell you to go east on CA 108. > If I direct you to Yosemite I'll tell you to go east on CA 120. But for a > number of miles they are the same road with dual signage with no obvious > method of tell which one is the most common designator. > > > > (You can probably tell what the road officially is by looking at the very > cryptic and hard to read version of a mile/information posts that CalTrans > uses but most motorists never notice them and if they do they are very > difficult to read or decipher without stopping.) > > > > Some of your examples are in areas I am not familiar with. But in both the > San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles there are named freeways. I notice > that in the Bay Area the name is almost never used whereas in LA it seems > both are used with the name being more common. In either case I'd expect > the name key to specify the name and the ref to specify the route number. > How you decide that a local would be more likely to use the name (LA) or > the ref (SF) I haven't the fainted idea. > > > > Tod > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
