Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
I finally figured out that when it's type=route, osm2pgsql changes the field name to route_name so I've updated the database and configs to show route_name. In the example below, the ways are tagged with local street names, but the highway has no name or ref, but instead the highway name and ref is pulled from the relation information. http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=15&lat=-29.78160122412&lon=151.16912834144 Also I've set the config to render relation names after local street names so that way highways don't clobber local names. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Wed, 19/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > Sounds like a good idea to me I've updated the tagging guidelines to reflect this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: > > [[snip]] > Does anyone think this is a good idea? > > Use network=D for D classified roads, if they exist. > Use network=detour for NSW classified detour routes > Use network=alt_NR for Alternate NR routes > Sounds like a good idea to me -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25039498.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Wed, 19/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: > D roads certainly do > exist, however at times the signs are covered over/folded > up etc. The > one I know for certain is a Pacific Highway detour which > heads West > from Nabiac and goes up to Krambach: > http://osm.org/go/uaQzXe_ You missed the point, NSW uses 'D' to indicate detour, other states use D to indicate the classification of the road, in the same way as MABC except they have MABCD Which is why I was suggesting to use network=D for those that have D classification roads, and network=detour for states that use D to mean detour. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
D roads certainly do exist, however at times the signs are covered over/folded up etc. The one I know for certain is a Pacific Highway detour which heads West from Nabiac and goes up to Krambach: http://osm.org/go/uaQzXe_ After that I don't know where it goes. There's a D sign at this intersection: http://osm.org/go/uaQzVoPL but I've not followed it after that. I guess it goes to Gloucester and follows the Buckets Way back to the Pacific Highway ~30km North of Raymond Terrace. The D sign linked to above was only installed after a fatal accident occured on the Pacific Highway at Buladelah which resulted in all traffic being diverted at Nabiac (and a large number of cars passing by our property on Wallanbah Road requiring directions). Prior to that accident ~2 years ago I don't think there was an official detour route, so they may only be temporary and not worth mapping. For anybody who's interested the D route sign in question is visible in Google Street View here: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-32.085556,152.322092&spn=0,359.92301&z=14&layer=c&cbll=-32.085453,152.32208&panoid=u93FikimFDFYopOTvwIqEg&cbp=12,212.72,,0,12.53 -Brent - Original Message - From: John Smith Date: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org > I'm going to be adding Tourist Route Shields to the map shortly > but in the process of looking for a graphic I came across this > page on wikipedia: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Route_shields_of_Australia > > It lists shields for a number of things like Alt National Route, > and on one of the other wiki pages it uses 'D' routes to mean > Detour however these routes aren't in the same category as MABC. > > Does anyone think this is a good idea? > > Use network=D for D classified roads, if they exist. > Use network=detour for NSW classified detour routes > Use network=alt_NR for Alternate NR routes > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
I'm going to be adding Tourist Route Shields to the map shortly but in the process of looking for a graphic I came across this page on wikipedia: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Route_shields_of_Australia It lists shields for a number of things like Alt National Route, and on one of the other wiki pages it uses 'D' routes to mean Detour however these routes aren't in the same category as MABC. Does anyone think this is a good idea? Use network=D for D classified roads, if they exist. Use network=detour for NSW classified detour routes Use network=alt_NR for Alternate NR routes ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Tue, 18/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > I don't think the outer green border is worth showing a > different shield, > just make them all the same. It takes little effort and an extra tag on the relation to have this information. If we can do it why shouldn't we? > Maybe it's worth creating a Australian rendering page on > the wiki where we > can collect all the different route signs. With the addr: > specifier, there's > no reason why we can't get the Australian/state specific > shields into the > main OSM map (mapnik). That is the ultimate goal :) However if we can tag all major and a good number of minor highways this way we can then submit a patch+shield graphics showing the valid shields. > Is the tiny differences worth it? I don't think so It takes very little effort to add a country and state information to the ref=* relation, so why not? > That seems contrary to the new changes to the Australian > Tagging Guidelines Work in progress, how could this be explained better? :) > regarding M/A/B/C Alphanumeric routes (ie. this proposal). > It seems to me to > apply to all road routes. Most of the B&C rural roads I > know in Victoria are > not highways. Most B&C roads would mostly be a single segment or close to it too. Obviously that section of the wiki needs updating. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, BlueMM wrote: > That website appears inaccurate. It says the state route marker is no > longer used in Vic, but there is a route with that marker a block away from > me right now. Also, the M1/7 example appears wrong, AFAIK, the one used in > VIC is more like the NSW one, without the outer green border. It has > slightly rounded inner green square & an outer white border (also rounded). > I don't think the outer green border is worth showing a different shield, > just make them all the same. > > Maybe it's worth creating a Australian rendering page on the wiki where we > can collect all the different route signs. With the addr: specifier, > there's no reason why we can't get the Australian/state specific shields > into the main OSM map (mapnik). http://www.ozroads.com.au/ is a better site, well photodocumented with dates for each photo ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: > > --- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > >> But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield design), why >> specify state? > > Consistent to what? > > Some states have gone to a alphanumeric system, some use the old NH > shields and those with the alphanumeric system have different shields > between states. > > http://www.routemarkers.com/Oceania/ > That website appears inaccurate. It says the state route marker is no longer used in Vic, but there is a route with that marker a block away from me right now. Also, the M1/7 example appears wrong, AFAIK, the one used in VIC is more like the NSW one, without the outer green border. It has slightly rounded inner green square & an outer white border (also rounded). I don't think the outer green border is worth showing a different shield, just make them all the same. Maybe it's worth creating a Australian rendering page on the wiki where we can collect all the different route signs. With the addr: specifier, there's no reason why we can't get the Australian/state specific shields into the main OSM map (mapnik). John Smith-129 wrote: > >> I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, but I suggest >> we >> mention drop the state for know national shields. > > From what I've seen there is no consistency, even when they change to the > alphanumeric system they still differ in the shields they use :) > Is the tiny differences worth it? I don't think so John Smith-129 wrote: > >> I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are for eg. C123 >> and called TownA-TownB Road. >> It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the separate ref/name >> relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got ideas/opinions? > > I've only been talking about highways, not roads, I haven't considered > what to do about roads, same thing as streets I suppose. > That seems contrary to the new changes to the Australian Tagging Guidelines regarding M/A/B/C Alphanumeric routes (ie. this proposal). It seems to me to apply to all road routes. Most of the B&C rural roads I know in Victoria are not highways. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25021174.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield > design), why specify > state? Consistent to what? Some states have gone to a alphanumeric system, some use the old NH shields and those with the alphanumeric system have different shields between states. http://www.routemarkers.com/Oceania/ > I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, > but I suggest we > mention drop the state for know national shields. >From what I've seen there is no consistency, even when they change to the >alphanumeric system they still differ in the shields they use :) > I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are > for eg. C123 and > called TownA-TownB Road. > It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the > separate ref/name > relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got > ideas/opinions? I've only been talking about highways, not roads, I haven't considered what to do about roads, same thing as streets I suppose. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: > > --- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM wrote: >> A few questions: >> 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for this to work, >> but >> :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for state specific >> sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need state). > > The states vary on different shields, not just state routes. > But my point was if they *are* consistent (same shield design), why specify state? I don't know if any are consistent right around Australia, but I suggest we mention drop the state for know national shields. John Smith-129 wrote: > >> 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there doesn't seem >> to >> be any problem with having just one relation, combining the tags. I think >> this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good thing). > > I haven't started work on state based highways, been working on highway 1 > mostly, and it changes names a fair bit, but I still think 2 relations > would be better than lumping it together and for consistency with other > highways. > I can think of a potentially hundreds of routes which are for eg. C123 and called TownA-TownB Road. It could be that is far more prevalent that needing the separate ref/name relations. Just trying to keep it simple, anyone else got ideas/opinions? John Smith-129 wrote: > > [[SNIP]] > Exactly, and bridges, and not naming ways reduces the chance of error, and > the ease to fix up errors, and reduces a lot of redundancy because the > same name doesn't have to be added to 100s of ways. > Sweet, that was my reasoning as well. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25002516.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Mon, 17/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > A few questions: > 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for > this to work, but > :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for > state specific > sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need > state). The states vary on different shields, not just state routes. > 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there > doesn't seem to > be any problem with having just one relation, combining the > tags. I think > this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good > thing). I haven't started work on state based highways, been working on highway 1 mostly, and it changes names a fair bit, but I still think 2 relations would be better than lumping it together and for consistency with other highways. > 3. I think you suggested if there is no underlying street > name for a section > of highway, copy/move the name from the relation to the > way, is that right? No, if there is no street name don't name the way, this way things will render better because you won't get highway names going round roundabouts and over bridges even though they are part of the same highway. > I'd prefer the other way, where the name is stored in the > relation so a lot > of the ways would have no name (the validators/no-names > maps would need to > be updated to grab data from relations if they don't > already do. I think > this would be a nice clean solution, and matches the > suggestion ages ago to > put a street name in a relation when it is broken up by > many residential > roundabouts... Exactly, and bridges, and not naming ways reduces the chance of error, and the ease to fix up errors, and reduces a lot of redundancy because the same name doesn't have to be added to 100s of ways. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
John Smith-129 wrote: > > This is the current relation tags I've come up with based on the talk-us > threads. > > Ref Relation tags: > > addr:country=Australia > addr:state=QLD > network=A > ref=1 > route=road > type=route > > Name Relation tags: > name=Bruce Highway > route=road > type=route > Nice work John, looks great. A few questions: 1. I presume the addr:country=Australia is manditory for this to work, but :state optional? I could imagine only needing state for state specific sheilds (ie. nationally consistent ones wouldn't need state). 2. If a Route has the same ref/name for it's length, there doesn't seem to be any problem with having just one relation, combining the tags. I think this would make simple cases simple to map (always a good thing). 3. I think you suggested if there is no underlying street name for a section of highway, copy/move the name from the relation to the way, is that right? I'd prefer the other way, where the name is stored in the relation so a lot of the ways would have no name (the validators/no-names maps would need to be updated to grab data from relations if they don't already do. I think this would be a nice clean solution, and matches the suggestion ages ago to put a street name in a relation when it is broken up by many residential roundabouts... BlueMM (checking how posting from Nabble.com works compared to Gmane.org, which has broken posting at the moment) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/I%27ve-been-trying-to-fix-the-highway-shields-and-came-across-this-tp24970890p25000891.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Australian Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Sun, 16/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > OK, a reason to split - I couldn't think of any reason > either way The Savannah Way goes from QLD to WA, it's one "route" and I can't think of a good reason to split it. There is a system limitation of 1000 ways per relation, the Americans got round this by making multiple relations of the same route and then added all the relations to a "super" relation. That's a system limitation though, not a reason to split on state borders. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > > would you break the relations at State borders or not? > > I have been for the ref=* relation because I'm adding > addr:country=Australia, addr:state=QLD so that different state shields can > be displayed differently. OK, a reason to split - I couldn't think of any reason either way > > I didn't really think what to do with highway names. Can anyone think of a > good reason to split, or reason we shouldn't? -- BOFH excuse #140: LBNC (luser brain not connected) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
This is the current relation tags I've come up with based on the talk-us threads. Ref Relation tags: addr:country=Australia addr:state=QLD network=A ref=1 route=road type=route Name Relation tags: name=Bruce Highway route=road type=route ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Sun, 16/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > would you break the relations at State borders or not? I have been for the ref=* relation because I'm adding addr:country=Australia, addr:state=QLD so that different state sheilds can be displayed different. I didn't really think what to do with highway names. Can anyone think of a good reason to split, or reason we shouldn't? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > It might be good to put the name and the ref in different relations, for > example, A1 continues past Carins, but it changes name from the Bruce > Highway to the Captain Cook Highway. that I did see in May > > In this example there would be 3 relations, 1 for A1, 1 for the Bruce > Highway and 1 for the Captain Cook Highway, and none of the ways in the > relations have a name=* or ref=* tag except if there is a local street > name, eg the Bruce Highway is also Mulgave Road in Cairns would you break the relations at State borders or not? -- Tonight's the night: Sleep in a eucalyptus tree. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Sun, 16/8/09, Liz wrote: > i think that it sounds like an improvement overall It might be good to put the name and the ref in different relations, for example, A1 continues past Carins, but it changes name from the Bruce Highway to the Captain Cook Highway. In this example there would be 3 relations, 1 for A1, 1 for the Bruce Highway and 1 for the Captain Cook Highway, and none of the ways in the relations have a name=* or ref=* tag except if there is a local street name, eg the Bruce Highway is also Mulgave Road in Cairns. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > > Also they talk about only adding ref's to relations that > > have the entire highway. > > The other reason to use relations instead of tagging individual sections of > ways is consistency, a lot of highways are badly or inconsistently tagged, > if all the ways are part of the same highway they will be very easy to keep > consistent. i think that it sounds like an improvement overall ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
> Also they talk about only adding ref's to relations that > have the entire highway. The other reason to use relations instead of tagging individual sections of ways is consistency, a lot of highways are badly or inconsistently tagged, if all the ways are part of the same highway they will be very easy to keep consistent. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
> Also they talk about only adding ref's to relations that > have the entire highway. I've been playing about with this marking a tourist route and this makes a lot of sense. When highways and/or tourist routes share the same physical piece of road you can have each with it's own relation route, with the ref and name, instead of trying to cram information about both, or more, routes into the same tags in a haphazard way. It also means you can tag streets with the street name and not have to worry about should you add the highway name, or should you use alt_name or what to do. I copied information from some of the US tagged interstates, and it looks like this is how they ended up deciding to tag things. The highway itself if it doesn't have a street name is blank, then you add all the ways from the same highway segment into a relation with the following information: addr:country=Australia addr:state=QLD network=T ref=20 route=road type=route They tag the ways with north/east/south/west because that's what appears on signs over there, I couldn't think of a good local equivalent so I had all the roles on all the ways set to 'member' ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
--- On Sat, 15/8/09, Liz wrote: > ref=NH56 > is one tag trying to do two things > > so i agree with Ben's general assertion that they should be > split into network > and reference The only issue is someone is proposing network=* for a completely different purpose: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Importance It might be a better idea to use addr:* tags to indication the country/state instead of trying to lump it in with the highway designation, eg: addr:country=australia addr:state=nsw network=nh That way shields for NSW can be distinct from shields used in other states, not just distinct for Australia v rest of the world. Big long thread on it from the talk-us list here: http://www.mail-archive.com/talk...@openstreetmap.org/msg00947.html The US wiki page on this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations Also they talk about only adding ref's to relations that have the entire highway, which makes sense, I'm having all sorts of fun trying to unbunch shields at the moment because they are all individual segments. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009, Ben Kelley wrote: > Personally I like > > Ref=56 > Network=au_nh > > Over > > Ref=NH56 > > Because the ref really is 56. > > -Ben. ref=NH56 is one tag trying to do two things so i agree with Ben's general assertion that they should be split into network and reference ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
Personally I like Ref=56 Network=au_nh Over Ref=NH56 Because the ref really is 56. -Ben. -Original Message- From: John Smith Sent: 14 August 2009 22:26 To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this http://www.weait.com/content/badges-badges Specifically they have network=us_i for example, US Interstate Is this something we should be doing too, eg network=au_nh I'll probably get booed because this is border line tagging for the renderer but this would then be easy for anyone rendering map tiles and routing software etc etc etc to be preloaded with information about various highway designations in various countries. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] I've been trying to fix the highway shields and came across this....
http://www.weait.com/content/badges-badges Specifically they have network=us_i for example, US Interstate Is this something we should be doing too, eg network=au_nh I'll probably get booed because this is border line tagging for the renderer but this would then be easy for anyone rendering map tiles and routing software etc etc etc to be preloaded with information about various highway designations in various countries. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
