Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] destination:street

[Duane Gearhart]

Hey Martijn,

Apologies for my delay getting back to you.

As suggested - I added a link on the destination page [1]

For this location [2] the interchange information would look like this:
destination=West Valley
destination:ref=UT 201 West
destination:street=1300 South;2100 South
as updated here [3]
Note how the destination:street values follow the OSM pattern of spelling
out street names. Also, the semicolon separated names are easily read into
a a list of exit branch street names.

If user would would continue and take exit 305C onto 1300 South [4] as
captured here [5]
then the software can rank, sort, and collapse the consecutive exit
information - therefore, "1300 South" would take precedence over "2100
South"
I briefly discussed this at SotM US 2015 [6] at 12:23 into the video.

I can follow-up with you after the OSM data has been processed with recent
edits.

Regards,
Duane

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination#See_also
[2] http://openstreetcam.org/details/8230/168
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/37192513
[4] http://openstreetcam.org/details/8230/181
[5] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/32028378
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwglqOV6I9M



On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:

> Hi Duane,
>
> Thanks. I had overlooked the examples page (even though I searched the OSM
> wiki for the exact term!)
> I do appreciate the granularity of the destination:street tagging and
> would encourage the Telenav mappers to use it as well then, but we like to
> stick to conventions that are properly documented (not only in an example
> page). Since there is significant usage in N-America and some other regions
> [1], we could add it to the destination tag page [2]?
>
> My only issue with destination:street is that there’s still ambiguity when
> more than one street is on the sign, like here [3]. Would that then be
> destination:street=1300 So.;2100 So. and destination:ref=201 and
> destination:West Valley? The advantage of having a separate tag partly
> vanishes when you still need the semicolon separator?
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
> [1] http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/destination%3Astreet#map
> <http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/destination:street#map>
> [ <http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/destination:street#map>2]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination
> [3] http://openstreetcam.org/details/8230/168
>
> <http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/destination%3Astreet#map>
>
> <http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/destination%3Astreet#map>
>
> On Jan 19, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Duane Gearhart <du...@mapzen.com> wrote:
>
> Hey Martijn,
>
> It looks correct to me - using the destination:street allows users to know
> if the ramp is branching onto the specified street name vs. heading toward
> a street name - examples are located here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info#Road_name_Example
>
> Mappers have been using in the US too:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln4
>
> Here is an example way:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11502773#map=19/39.21853/-76.65894
>
> You can see how it is used in the directions:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car;
> route=39.22079%2C-76.65959%3B39.22139%2C-76.65428
>
> Regards,
> Duane
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on
>> (mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag
>> of the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is
>> some sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.
>>
>> An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2
>>
>> Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 /
>> http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 — I think in the US we would
>> just map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1
>>
>> So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is
>> this actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should
>> it be documented? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.or
>> g/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details seems to be a good
>> candidate.)
>>
>> We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but
>> I wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.
>>
>> Happy mapping,
>>
>> Martijn van Exel
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] destination:street

[Duane Gearhart]

Hey Martijn,

It looks correct to me - using the destination:street allows users to know
if the ramp is branching onto the specified street name vs. heading toward
a street name - examples are located here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info#Road_name_Example

Mappers have been using in the US too:
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln4

Here is an example way:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/11502773#map=19/39.21853/-76.65894

You can see how it is used in the directions:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car=39.22079%2C-76.65959%3B39.22139%2C-76.65428

Regards,
Duane




On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The Telenav mapping team noticed quite a few destination:street tags on
> (mostly) motorway_link off-ramps in Canada. This is an undocumented sub-tag
> of the destination tag so I am curious how it is being used and if there is
> some sort of consensus that is documented somewhere else than the OSM wiki.
>
> An Overpass query surfaced 1883 cases, http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ln2
>
> Looking at a random one, http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34154734 /
> http://openstreetcam.org/details/10767/4194 — I think in the US we would
> just map this as destination=Carman Road;Iriquois and destination:ref=1
>
> So my question is whether this is some relic of a past practice, or is
> this actively used and encouraged mapping practice and if so, where should
> it be documented? (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/
> Destination_details seems to be a good candidate.)
>
> We’re happy to help improve these tags based on OSC / Mapillary data but I
> wanted to make sure first that this is the way you all want to go.
>
> Happy mapping,
>
> Martijn van Exel
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Motorway_junction = javbw confusion

[Duane Gearhart]

Using the Common Japanese Junction.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2414/138.8943

I ran a route from the highway:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car=36.23997%2C138.89054%3B36.24526%2C138.89465#map=17/36.24221/138.89378

I ran a route to the highway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car=36.24529%2C138.89454%3B36.24077%2C138.89946#map=17/36.24294/138.89512

Do these instructions look correct? I am sure more interchange sign
information could be added to the data to give the user more information to
help with confusion. If there was mapillary at interchange I could add more
of the interchange information.
Apologies - I am just trying to understand what the issue is with respect
to user guidance confusion. (and I do not know Japanese)

Thanks,
Duane


On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:20 PM, John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Javbw
> On Jun 2, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Duane Gearhart <du...@mapzen.com> wrote:
>
> Can you give an example route using osm.org of where there is an issue?
>
>
> I will re-read the tagging pages to make sure I am not confused, but if a
> "motorway_junction" = exit, and there is no implicit tag for entrances,
> this works fine in most places because there is usually a entrance-exit
> pair for each direction of travel.
>
> I assume because the ways are connected with a shared node that routing
> software can tell where to turn and where to go, but since the junction is
> used as a rendered label of the intersection, that visually might be
> confusing if there is an exit/entrance only in one direction on the
> motorway or if there is an entrance only.
>
> In the freeway system of America, the entrances and exits will be 4
> separate motorway_links that separately leave a normal road to join the
> motorway, but that is not expected in Japan - a single entrance-exit
> intersection for all directions of travel is common - so having a separated
> entrance or a junction with an exit for only one direction of travel is
> rendered confusingly. I have also come across junctions with named sections
> (gate 1&2)  handling their own entrance and exit _links under the guise of
> being a single "junction".
>
> Common Japanese Junction.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.2414/138.8943
>
> Common US underpass Junction
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/32.93673/-117.7
>
> Orphaned US entrance.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/32.72472/-117.15108
> (This is for 163 north, entrance on the other side is for 5 south or 94
> west)
>
> Separated Japanese Junction (etc only, causes wrong way drivers because of
> separation)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/36.3073/139.0912
>
> Japanese Exit only southbound (C22). Entrance only northbound. (Orphaned
> exit & orphaned entrance)This was the junction that had me question why the
> entrance _link had a junction tag on it.
>
> The tollway is in a tunnel under the primary road.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.6639/139.6882
>
> Weird junction that has 2 "gates" that lead to different major roads to go
> to two different tourist attractions (Mt Fuji & Hakone Caldera) but all
> under the same junction name and reference (ref=7) instead of the normal
> separation of close junctions (ref=7 & ref=7-1)
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/35.2952/138.9500
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Motorway_junction = javbw confusion

[Duane Gearhart]

I am not sure if I am following each example you mentioned - however, for
this example route
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=mapzen_car=35.2991%2C138.9550%3B35.2958%2C138.9439#map=17/35.29720/138.95192

You could add in interchange information(destination* tag) on the way
departing the highway:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34098787

Also, you could add interchange information(destination* tag) on each way
at the fork in the ramp:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/59175151
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/285333466

Examples from here may help:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exit_Info

Duane


On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:29 AM, johnw  wrote:

> Ran into a tagging issue today while cleaning up a (complicated) area of
> Tokyo I visited.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3851821325 Came across this
> highway=motorway_junction node. Seemed in the wrong place.
>
> Out in the Japanese countryside, the tollway exits usually have these
> properties:
>
> - a “junction" has an exit in both directions of the motorway (both the
> “down 下 “ and “ up 上 ” directions), so adding highway=motorway_junction to
> the two exit nodes makes sense.
> - these exits (usually) then meet at a common toll plaza between the
> motorway and the main road network
> - which lead to a common “entrance/exit” intersection(s) on the roads
> linking to the tollway, which have labeled intersection signals (sometimes)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.33227/139.10122
>
> - more complicated entrance and exit ramps still lead to a common toll
> plaza, so entering from one direction of travel or another on the normal
> road doesn’t limit your direction of travel on the motorway.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/36.3511/139.2196
>
> So how to enter the tollway seems obvious, but now there are more and more
> complicated entrance/exit schemes popping up, especially with "automated
> toll collection" exits and entrances around service areas and tunnels, like
> my questionable node is for.
>
> having an entrance-exit that only serves one direction of the tollway in
> rural areas has led to many “wrong way” drivers on the tollway. I have
> personally seen two in the same spot near a one-sided junction. They assume
> an entrance feeds both directions (as is common), and go backwards up the
> exit ramp after the automated toll gates. This has led to a TON of signage
> and arrows and other visual cues being installed on every motorway in the
> last year or so - because of the rapid increase of separated entrances and
> exits making more and more wrong-way drivers. The offending junction pair
> in my area: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/36.30869/139.09130 note,
> like the US, direction of travel means different exits and entrances,
> unlike Rural Japan (and my above examples) where a single connection to the
> normal road network allows access to either motorway direction, which is
> very common on the hundreds of junctions outside of Tokyo.
>
> This idea of tagging just the “exits” doesn’t help when:
>
> - the entrances are separated or have different access roads from the
> exits. So, so much signage is dedicated to finding entrances in complicated
> road networks - not tagging entrances seems to go against that.
> - the “entrance”  is so far away from the exit that the label for the exit
> node is not useful as an implied indicator that there is an entrance there
> too. It’s not useful to imply an entrance in general, since there might not
> be one (such as the offending node’s Southbound junction is exit-only).
>
> This particular node marks an entrance that is very very difficult to
> return to, so it caused me a big headache when I missed it a few months
> ago. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/773008249. I thought I had a
> hundred more meters until the entrance.
>
> - there is no exit node, just an entrance node, therefore the node label
> on the motorway itself can be hundreds of meters away from where the
> motorway_link begins, leading to missing the entrance (when used as a
> visual map), or, if I am understanding the wiki, shouldn’t be tagged at
> all.
> - The road network is so complicated, the junction labels overalap the
> entire rendered motorway, which visually implies there is an exit in a
> direction with no exit. (as in my node’s case, causing this email).
>
> so:
>
> - is highway=motorway_junction just for exits? it’s wiki page seems to
> imply/state it. Where is the corresponding motorway_entrance then when it
> is just an entrance? do we not need them?
> - if the junction is only an entrance in one direction of travel, wouldn’t
> the highway=motorway_junction be more useful on the node where the link
> meets the normal road network (where the driver has to make a no-way-back
> decision), or is that not needed?
>
> A user in the discussion page also had a good point - the motorway_link
> (both exit and entrance) roads often have multiple connections, names,
> refs,