Peter,
The "Miracle Mile" is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe it is a reference for a section of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive (also US 41). Other towns have used this reference to their business district. Note the reference in Billy Joel's "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me." For people like myself who visit Chicago, "the Dan Ryan" and "the Eisenhower" don't mean much, but I-90 and I-290 appear not only on maps but on exit signs, wayfinding signs, and mile posts. In the US, FWHA and the MUTCD have standards for route numbering signs and typically ALL of the routes on a given piece of pavement show up at key junctions (mile post signs will only have the primary route, however that was determined). My point here is that map users want to see all the route numbers on a given piece of pavement, not just the primary route. While OSM is very good about capturing all the information in tags, if only one route number appears at any given zoom level, those using the standard layer will not see the other routes (they are visible in the MapQuest Open layer). And in some cases, multiple route number tags apparently cause the OSM Standard layer rendering to simply not show any route number shields. There is a section of I-75 near me that is also US-23. In the OSM standard layer, neither of those route numbers is visible at any zoom level for a 75 mile stretch of interstate. The same thing happens on US-41/M-28 west of Marquette, MI until you get to z=13. This is not a "user friendly" view for map users. Kerry From: Peter Davies [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 11:30 PM To: Kerry Irons Cc: Tod Fitch; 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 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
