Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
2012/10/30 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: There is also the destination tag set which covers the ref as signposted, allowing the ref=* to reflect the actual administrative ID. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination If you mean by destination tag set the key destination:ref I'll agree. But please don't put refs into destination. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
2012/10/30 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: There is also the destination tag set which covers the ref as signposted, allowing the ref=* to reflect the actual administrative ID. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination If you mean by destination tag set the key destination:ref I'll agree. But please don't put refs into destination. In the case of ref that's indeed exactly what I meant. Personally I also allow destination to override name in mkgmap so the routing instructions reflect the big signs in preference to the small signs. That's why I was speaking slightly more generically. Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
* Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]: On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: using something like ref:unsigned=OH 315C to mean this road is part of Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so sounds perfectly sane to me. It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign or not. I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. :-) -- Larry Wall ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
* Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com [2012-10-24 14:49 +0900]: I think it's incredibly relevant whether it's included on the sign. I suspect that the vast majority of people who use maps with reference numbers on them use those maps for navigation. I think such people would primarily be interested in signed reference numbers, because it's pretty hard to navigate by unsigned ones. Thus, there should be some difference in the tagging of signed and unsigned reference numbers. There has to be room for both. Sometimes the signposts lie in the interests of clarity for navigation by road users. There is also the destination tag set which covers the ref as signposted, allowing the ref=* to reflect the actual administrative ID. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:destination Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 16:26:11 -0400 From: nice...@att.net To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link On 10/23/2012 4:10 PM, Johan C wrote: c) it quite often will be impossible for any (present/future) routing engine to always predict the right exit number based on the motorway_junction ref. Imagine a more complicated junction. These may use y-splits where one highway=motorway is split into two highway=motorways. Or one highway=motorway_link is split into two highway=motorway_links. What should the prediction for the junction number be? Left or right? There was this proposal that made sense to me back at the time: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/motorway_junction_Extension ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging I could revive that if everybody thought it was a good idea since I came up with it. --James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
Hi Martin, First and foremost, tags applied to an object should of course refer to that object. I normally interpret the ref tag on a ROAD as the reference ID of that ROAD as designated by the powers-that-be. Motorway slip roads are (in my experience in UK/NL) administratively speaking an extra part of the motorway, which means the ref should be whatever the authorities consider it to be part of. There are often clues to this in the form of codes on street lights and distance posts. On the other hand, if the ref is to be interpreted as the road reference for that road as present on the signs for the public (referring to that very road itself, not the road the ramp leads to) then the junction number may be more appropriate. On the English wiki page for motorway_link it kind of hints in this direction. A motorway exit is really a compound object including typically four slip roads and sometimes roundabouts etc. Puritanically speaking we could considering modelling exits as a relation, with the motorway_links included with role=on_ramp etc. Then the junction number would live on the relation. A link from one motorway to another could then easily be shared between the relations for the junctions on each motorway. (In the UK, motorway-motorway junctions are numbered like any other junction. In NL they are not included in the junction numbering sequence; instead they have names like Knooppunt Oudenrijn). I guess the same question may be applied to the name tag? Colin Hi! I'm wondering what ref should be used on slip roads/ramps of a motorway (not the junction node, but the way tagged with motorway_link). Up to now I've seen: * the reference of the junction * the reference of the motorway * the reference of the junction not in the ref tag but in junction:ref * nothing (neither ref nor junction:ref) In the Wiki (English and German) I couldn't find an answer. Any opinions/comments/hints are welcome. Thanks, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
On 10/23/12 9:15 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote: If a motorway link is part of a route (one needs to actually drive on the link to continue on the route) then I put the ref for that route on the link. Otherwise, no ref tag. i agree. by convention, ref tags get rendered on the map and users of the map expect to see some sort of clear signage relating to the rendered content. this is why i don't put New York State Reference Route numbers in the ref tag, i put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
On Oct 23, 2012 8:32 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: On 10/23/12 9:15 PM, David ``Smith'' wrote: If a motorway link is part of a route (one needs to actually drive on the link to continue on the route) then I put the ref for that route on the link. Otherwise, no ref tag. i agree. by convention, ref tags get rendered on the map and users of the map expect to see some sort of clear signage relating to the rendered content. this is why i don't put New York State Reference Route numbers in the ref tag, i put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered. Can we fix the renderer to use relations already? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
On Oct 23, 2012 9:32 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: by convention, ref tags get rendered on the map I think the main Mapnik rendering does not render ref on highway=*_link, actually. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
On Oct 24, 2012 12:25 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this is why i don't put New York State Reference Route numbers in the ref tag, i put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered. Isn't that simply tagging for the renderer? And doesn't this just mean I put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered... ...yet. or ...by this particular renderer. Who would make a renderer that renders the value of a key like ref:unsigned? A roadgeek probably, but I think such a rendering stylesheet should differentiate between signed and unsigned refs. Anyway, using something like ref:unsigned=OH 315C to mean this road is part of Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so sounds perfectly sane to me. Richard didn't say he uses that key *because* it's not rendered; he uses it because it makes sense. The fact that it's not rendered on general-purpose maps justifies the view that the tag won't cause problems. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag ref on motorway_link
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:10 PM, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 24, 2012 12:25 AM, Andrew Errington erringt...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote: this is why i don't put New York State Reference Route numbers in the ref tag, i put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered. Isn't that simply tagging for the renderer? And doesn't this just mean I put them in ref:unsigned which isn't rendered... ...yet. or ...by this particular renderer. Who would make a renderer that renders the value of a key like ref:unsigned? Probably no-one, because it's not documented. A roadgeek probably, but I think such a rendering stylesheet should differentiate between signed and unsigned refs. Anyway, using something like ref:unsigned=OH 315C to mean this road is part of Ohio state route 315C but the signs don't say so sounds perfectly sane to me. It doesn't sound sane to me. Either the road has the reference, or it does not. I don't think it's relevant whether it's included on a sign or not. Richard didn't say he uses that key *because* it's not rendered; he uses it because it makes sense. The fact that it's not rendered on general-purpose maps justifies the view that the tag won't cause problems. It's not rendered because nobody knows about it. There are only 36 instances of ref:unsigned in the whole world, so it probably was not a good example to use. Anyway, shouldn't it be reg_ref (Regional reference) instead? Or a relation? Best wishes, Andrew ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
