Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
Ah sorry maybe in that other order. The key point is to sort the stops and the ways separately and how tools can still route along the ordered ways. From: Jo Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2020 12:00:51 PM To: Alex Dawn Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations Where does it say that, because in most route relations I looked at the stops are first (preferably in the order they are passed) and then the ways in the order they are traversed. Polyglot On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 10:15 PM Alex Dawn mailto:al_4...@hotmail.co.uk>> wrote: The PTv2 schema says to put all the route ways first in order, then the bus stops in order. Maybe you can do a similar thing here and sort the route ways first and then the sign points. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Martin Koppenhoefer mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 9:04:11 PM To: bartosom...@yahoo.it<mailto:bartosom...@yahoo.it> mailto:bartosom...@yahoo.it>> Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations sent from a phone On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:33, Alberto Nogaro via talk mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: So if you do so, information is indeed lost. +1 Otherwise I can’t see why should it difficult to data consumer to strip the unwanted information before processing the route. +1 Unless the script preserves the information by storing it by alternative means, I would regard such a script as vandalism. I agree and oppose this proposed automatic edit Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020 18:14:14 +0200 pangoSE wrote: > Hi > > Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route > relations. I suggest we delete them from all relations by running a > script. I se no loss of information doing that and a benefit to data > consumers wanting to sort and calculate the length and height profile > of the relation which I think should only contain unclosed ways > belonging to the route. > > What do you think? I think that if software can't handle filtering out route members that aren't of interest, it's defective and needs to be re-written. (I think it's also likely to crash as soon as it encounters some of the messes that make up real-world OSM data.) -- Mark ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
The PTv2 schema says to put all the route ways first in order, then the bus stops in order. Maybe you can do a similar thing here and sort the route ways first and then the sign points. Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> From: Martin Koppenhoefer Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 9:04:11 PM To: bartosom...@yahoo.it Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations sent from a phone On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:33, Alberto Nogaro via talk wrote: So if you do so, information is indeed lost. +1 Otherwise I can’t see why should it difficult to data consumer to strip the unwanted information before processing the route. +1 Unless the script preserves the information by storing it by alternative means, I would regard such a script as vandalism. I agree and oppose this proposed automatic edit Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
sent from a phone > On 25. Jul 2020, at 20:33, Alberto Nogaro via talk > wrote: > > So if you do so, information is indeed lost. > +1 > Otherwise I can’t see why should it difficult to data consumer to strip the > unwanted information before processing the route. > +1 > > > Unless the script preserves the information by storing it by alternative > means, I would regard such a script as vandalism. > I agree and oppose this proposed automatic edit Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
You could run a script to remove the signposts from the route relations. But, other than digging in the database history, there’s no script which could add them back (proximity of a sign to a route is not a valid criterion). So if you do so, information is indeed lost. Otherwise I can’t see why should it difficult to data consumer to strip the unwanted information before processing the route. Unless the script preserves the information by storing it by alternative means, I would regard such a script as vandalism. From: pangoSE Sent: 25 July 2020 18:14 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations Hi Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route relations. I suggest we delete them from all relations by running a script. I se no loss of information doing that and a benefit to data consumers wanting to sort and calculate the length and height profile of the relation which I think should only contain unclosed ways belonging to the route. What do you think? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
On 25.07.20 18:14, pangoSE wrote: > Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route relations. > I suggest we delete them from all relations by running a script. > I se no loss of information It loses the information whether or not a route is signed at a particular signpost. Because, no, it is not the case that every signpost will always contain directions for every route running closer than x meters past it. You may not personally care about that information, but that's a very different argument. These are verifiable facts that someone found useful enough to spend time mapping, and I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having them in OSM. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
Where was the discussion. Do you have a link? I think the relation of the 'route' should be purely the ways & if there's an actual requirement*, the signs should be included as a part of a super relation https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Super-Relation * Is there a requirement? Doesn't the route tell you where to go, & calculates how far to destination? I'm slightly concerned a super relation would turn into a similar mess that PTv2 Stop Areas have become, where almost anything remotely near a transport stop is added to it. DaveF On 25/07/2020 17:14, pangoSE wrote: Hi Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route relations. I suggest we delete them from all relations by running a script. I se no loss of information doing that and a benefit to data consumers wanting to sort and calculate the length and height profile of the relation which I think should only contain unclosed ways belonging to the route. What do you think? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Removing all signposts from relations
Hi Recently it was discussed whether to have signposts in route relations. I suggest we delete them from all relations by running a script. I se no loss of information doing that and a benefit to data consumers wanting to sort and calculate the length and height profile of the relation which I think should only contain unclosed ways belonging to the route. What do you think?___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
