Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] cardinal directions

[Martijn van Exel]

Martijn van Exel

> On Jan 18, 2017, at 9:35 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martijn van Exel  > wrote:
> I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion that we had 
> on talk-us a couple of years ago. Right now both are used 
> (north/south/east/west as relation member role as well as direction on the 
> relation tag) but the former is used way more often. That’s why I am 
> suggesting going with the practice that has surfaced as the most popular, as 
> well as the outcome of earlier discussion. 
> 
> Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly, but I am *not* suggesting to 
> use tags on ways to indicate cardinal direction, just assign roles to 
> relation members. Agreed that adding this type of info to ways makes it 
> impossible to validate / maintain.
> 
> Right, I think we're on the same page.  I'm also suggesting it's high time we 
> revisited the issue as the tools to handle managing north/east/south/west 
> roles (as opposed to forward/backward) just plain never materialized.  If it 
> was going to happen, it would have already happened (it's been years!).

What tools were you thinking about? I remember submitting a patch to JOSM a 
while ago which did not get accepted.. That’s all I did on the tools end of 
things. Agreed support could be better.

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] cardinal directions

[Martijn van Exel]

I am trying to be consistent with the outcome of the discussion that we had on 
talk-us a couple of years ago. Right now both are used (north/south/east/west 
as relation member role as well as direction on the relation tag) but the 
former is used way more often. That’s why I am suggesting going with the 
practice that has surfaced as the most popular, as well as the outcome of 
earlier discussion. 

Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly, but I am *not* suggesting to use 
tags on ways to indicate cardinal direction, just assign roles to relation 
members. Agreed that adding this type of info to ways makes it impossible to 
validate / maintain.

This also does not have to preclude having separate e/w or n/s relations + a 
super relation — I think that is actually good practice for big relations to 
keep them manageable.

Martijn van Exel

> On Jan 13, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Martijn van Exel  > wrote:
> Hi all, 
> 
> Some of you may remember the discussion we had on tagging cardinal directions 
> in the US, which led to the wiki page[1] describing the current practice.
> Basically the convention we arrived on is to tag relation members with 
> role=north/east/south/west to indicate cardinal direction.
> This is backed up by usage in the US. About 75% of way members of Interstate 
> road relations have directional role members[2].
> 
> Can we not do this?  Can this not be a thing?  Can we instead go route master 
> and only have child relations have cardinal roles, with child ways being 
> exclusively forward/backward?  Because cardinal directions on the ways 
> themselves is 1) ambiguous AF and 2) breaks validation on a level that it can 
> take hours to days for experienced editors to manually validate, and can't be 
> automated as a result.
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> talk...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca