Thanks for that Jeffrey. I agree entirely that rendering should follow tagging and not lead tagging, my main concern at the moment is that UK rendering (blue for motorway and orange for secondary) is encouraging inappropriate tagging. I think we agree that one should clarify first how to tag what is on the ground and then decide on how to render the data. Based in the UK I am reliant on tiger and aerial photography to inform my choice of tagging Am I right in thinking that the synthesis of this discussion is being added to this wiki page?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Highway_tag_usage Fyi I have been doing a lot of work on the San Francisco bay area (Golden Gate down to Foster City) over the past week or so and I am having been working on the road classes tags today, hence my question. I have been: Lifting the road class of roads tagged as secondary but which have flyovers and divided carriageways etc and making them trunk (but motorway might be more appropriate) Lifting 'braded roads' with two carriageways in tiger data from residential to primary. Lifting some other roads from residential to secondary where they are clearly significant feeder roads for an area. Rationalising link roads to get them to match the class of road they are feeding (there were lots of motorway_link roads feeding secondary for example). My first pass looked pretty ugly. I am currently waiting for osmarender to render my latest adjustment to the primary network in the area and would then be grateful for feedback as to whether I am on the right lines (but do wait until tomorrow when the rendering should have finished). I have also being doing a lot of 'de-duplicating' of roads pre/post tiger. In general I have kept pre-tiger freeways and kept tiger for other roads. I have also given a pass over most of the freeway network in the bay area in the past week and have added the second carriageways where required and cleaned up the geometry and sorted out some of the junctions. Regards, Peter _____ From: Jeffrey Martin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 April 2008 15:42 To: Peter Miller Cc: Talk Openstreetmap; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] tagging and rendering highways in the USA and elsewhere On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:15 AM, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Major non-interstate highways that have traffic light free multi-level junctions etc should be tagged as 'trunk' and possibly also be rendered orange but with less grand route numbers to differentiate them from interstate routes. This statement really bothers me. First, we must make every effort to keep the data separate from the rendering. Consider a section of Interstate Highway that structurally resembles a UK motorway. This section of road may also be part of a state highway. It's not uncommon for a section of road to have both a state highway sign and an Interstate sign. In some very barren areas an Interstate may have standard intersections without ramps. As in your example above a road that is not an Interstate may have multiple levels and ramps. Whatever scheme we agree on must keep the road's structure separate from legal classifications. I checked and the wiki still says that the highway tag should be used to indicate what the road looks like. My reasoning can be found on the talk page. Whether a road is an Interstate, state highway, county road, etc. should be indicated in another data field. I haven't been following all the conversations lately, but I remember an Australian was tagging a gravel road as a motorway because it was the main road between two rural cities and he wanted it prominently rendered. Perhaps in this case some kind of importance tag should be used. I think free tagging is great, but we should not allow multiple definitions for each tag. A tag should not indicate both it's legal status and it's structure, although one might imply the other under certain circumstances. -- http://bowlad.com
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
