Thanks, Paul. That is exactly the kind of response (mind blowing in its comprehensive completeness, although I, for one, on this channel remain in listening mode) I was hoping for.
I would also like to see a simplification of exactly the sort you describe. Is it truly as easy as "asserting" that we move routes exclusively into relations? All the routes I deal with are relations, why are there still "laggards" who do things differently? (I'm listening, not judging). What about creating TWO relations for TWO routes? Like, a type=route relation with ref=OR 1W and another type=route relation which is ref=99W and network=US:OR? Are we / is somebody relying upon some older-style special-case code in archaic renderer(s) which could/should be updated? I don't want to step on toes (of implementors of old renderers), but elegant syntax is elegant syntax. Let's streamline towards elegant syntax where we can. SteveA California > On Dec 31, 2017, at 6:37 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Routes tagged as refs on ways instead of relations is a dinosaur that needs > to go extinct already (much like the ext filesystem after ext4 was introduced > in the Linux kernel, even by the admission of the kernel documentation and > the configuration option help text when compiling the kernel, which literally > said "let's kill this dinosaur already"). It greatly complicates and largely > prevents people from tagging way refs. > > Ideally, I would like to move routes completely away from ways and into > relations. It's extremely difficult to map Oregon and Pennsylvania's state > highway situations as a result right now. Oregon and Pennsylvania have the > concept of both state highways and state routes. In both cases, state > highways belong to the ways themselves, and state routes to the route (most > easily modelled as a relation). For 3 noteworthy Oregon highways, I'll give > an example of finally moving road routes to relations so way refs can be > mapped. > > Way: > name=Pacific Highway West > highway=secondary > ref=OR 1W > > Member of: > route=road > ref=99W > network=US:OR > > Now for another... > name=Robert Hugh Baldock Freeway > highway=motorway > ref=OR 1 > > Member of: > route=road > ref=5 > network=US:I > > And finally... > > name=Portland Road > highway=secondary > ref=OR 1E > > Which would be a member of: > route=road > ref=99E > network=US:OR > > You also get, say, campground loops. Which are part of the state highway > system but not signed as state routes, typically. So you'd get a situation > like this: > > highway=service > noname=yes > ref=OR 3974 > > and no relation at all. > > Pennsylvania does something similar, but for the most part, all state > highways have the same number as state routes, until you get into 4-digit > highways, then there's rarely a state route, just a highway number. > > The Oklahoma examples below would not have ref tags on the ways at all, just > unsigned_ref=* tags on the relations. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
