Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
this is great work, signs could be a bit smaller tough. why not stick with the symbol tag? see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging the symbols tagging should be transparent to the mappers not only to some internal notation of a renderer. and tags should be human readable. software can easily to the translation instead On 12 Apr 2009, at 7:38 , Greg Troxel wrote: > > network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit > network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit > network=us_ny # NY State Route > network=us_ny_county # > > That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like > tagging > for the renderer, and something that would be easy for the renderer to > figure out. What about us_i and then have renderers find the right > shield for the number of digits? > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 04:39 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:12 -0500 >> Ian Dees wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec >> > wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations. >> > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations >> > > >> > >> > Since interstate highways are usually two separate one-way ways, >> > which way (or both?) do we add to the relation? >> >> US routes can also become two separate one-ways when becoming >> express ways or trunk ways, while being a regular two-way street the >> rest of the way, so it probably doesn't make sense to have separate >> directions. Perhaps a proposal can be made for having >> role=North|South|East|West for type=route relations? > > Perhaps direction=North|South|West|East, or cardinal=North|South|West| > East? > >> Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as >> the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name="I 90", and >> network=US:IL, ref=58 would have name="IL 58" in the relations. > > I prefer "_" to ":" or ";" in this case as "_" can be used in a filename > without escaping. > > network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit > network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit > network=us_ny # NY State Route > network=us_ny_county # > > and so on. The network value plugs directly into the shield symbolizer > in mapnik for an easy renderer fix. The shield images can be > network_us_i_3.png to keep them all in order in the directory. > > I've got a demonstration of highway shields working here: > http://weait.com/maps/ Please be gentle on this unsuspecting box and > narrow pipe. > > To make shields work for everybody, I'd like to see > > - "network=" supported in highway ways, relations and super-relations > - further graphics work to refine the highway shield symbols for size / > centering > - wide adoption of the newly supported network tag. > - repair of the many broken ref= tags that read I-190 or even Interstate > 190, etc. > > Blog entry with more details here. > http://weait.com/content/badges-badges The highway badges you've added look great. Are you working on pushing your changes upstream? Cheers, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit > network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit > network=us_ny # NY State Route > network=us_ny_county # > > That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like tagging > for the renderer, and something that would be easy for the renderer to > figure out. What about us_i and then have renderers find the right > shield for the number of digits? I agree with this but suspect that Richard did that for the sake of simplicity in his altered code. Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On 12 Apr 2009, at 9:01 , Adam Schreiber wrote: > > Probably because the mapper can easily identify the type of road (i.e. > Interstate, US Hwy, etc.). I'm not sure that the mapper should be > specifying the URL of the sign since it requires extra work to find it > and any renderer should be able to pick their own source of sign > shields (I know they can simply ignore the suggested one, but this > method can put more information into the DB). ideally the renderer can figure out everything based on the ref tag and some tag or intelligent location lookup to find the state, county a road is in. It contains all you need to pick the correct sign. But you need the whole knowledge about signs for all states, county ... as an example California uses different signs for US routes but the same for interstates. State, county signs are different everywhere. And hey there is a world outside of US with even more variants. they will love local signs too! Adding a symbol tag is some work but doesn't harm if someone comes up with a heuristic in the renderer based on the ref, network, is_in, addr* tags and ignores it. a planet file is 102G uncompressed! does anyone care if we add ~ 1000 symbol tags for US? ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > this is great work, signs could be a bit smaller tough. > > why not stick with the symbol tag? see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging > the symbols tagging should be transparent to the mappers not only to > some internal notation of a renderer. > and tags should be human readable. software can easily to the > translation instead Probably because the mapper can easily identify the type of road (i.e. Interstate, US Hwy, etc.). I'm not sure that the mapper should be specifying the URL of the sign since it requires extra work to find it and any renderer should be able to pick their own source of sign shields (I know they can simply ignore the suggested one, but this method can put more information into the DB). Cheers, Adam > On 12 Apr 2009, at 7:38 , Greg Troxel wrote: > >> >> network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit >> network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit >> network=us_ny # NY State Route >> network=us_ny_county # >> >> That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like >> tagging >> for the renderer, and something that would be easy for the renderer to >> figure out. What about us_i and then have renderers find the right >> shield for the number of digits? >> >> ___ >> Talk-us mailing list >> talk...@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
Richard Weait writes: > On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 16:55 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >> Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >> > It contains all you need to pick the correct sign. But you need the >> > whole knowledge about signs for all states, county ... >> > as an example California uses different signs for US routes but the >> > same for interstates. >> >> Well, if the US ones are different, the Interstate ones are different >> for the same reason based on what i've seen in Northern California on >> I-5, US-199 and US-101: California's egotistical enough to put it's >> name on all route markers regardless of size. "Interstate California 5, >> US California 199", etc. > > network=us_us would be better than nothing for US 101 and US 199, in my > opinion. But if the local expert wants them to be rendered "right" why > not use network=us_us_ca ? US network, US Route, California variant, > and create a us_us_ca.png? > > Likewise, network=us_i_ca for the Interstate signs. > > Should work for Route 66 historic signs too. network=us_us_historic I'm in danger of spending more time flaming than fixing the map, but have always been interested in the database schema aspect of OSM. Evolving tags is messier than a designed scheme, but I see the wisdom of how it avoids the wrong design persisting. Still, I think it may make sense to try to design each microfeature. The US highways in California are really (I think) regular US highways, but CA uses a different kind of sign. So tagging then us_us_ca seems again like tagging for the renderer. This is sort of OK, perhaps, but it bothers me perhaps because it's doing so in a denormalized way. Database users that care if something is a US highway will then have to have a list of tags and check against that set. An alternative would be to have a shield hint tag, like shield_flavor=us_ca added, leaving network=us_i. Then users that don't care about sign variants jus see us highways, and renderers get their hints. Or perhaps renderers know that a highway is in CA. Or maybe the shield_flavor is needed because we're trying to match each road's actual signs, and they aren't consistent. Or maybe it's shield_flavour. For Route 66, I'm not clear on whether it is a historic route and the current legal route is elsewhere. If so, the the historic designation is part of the actual designation, not a rendering hint. pgpy5yGhiqXxA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > On 13 Apr 2009, at 5:36 , Adam Schreiber wrote: > >> >> What about: >> >> addr:country=us >> addr:state=ca >> network=us >> >> or >> >> addr:country=us >> addr:state=ca >> network=i >> > > network should be US, I, > all signs use uppercase, there can be so many uses for the data. network > should reflect the real usage not for one specific renderer. > if it's for mapnik only something like mapnik:network could be used. > but this is really ugly and hard to convince mappers to add it. The lower case has nothing to do with a renderer, just OSM convention for key value pairs other than name. Cheers, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit network=us_ny # NY State Route network=us_ny_county # That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like tagging for the renderer, and something that would be easy for the renderer to figure out. What about us_i and then have renderers find the right shield for the number of digits? pgpa29q3swZU5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 8:28 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > The US highways in California are really (I think) regular US highways, > but CA uses a different kind of sign. So tagging then us_us_ca seems > again like tagging for the renderer. This is sort of OK, perhaps, but > it bothers me perhaps because it's doing so in a denormalized way. > Database users that care if something is a US highway will then have to > have a list of tags and check against that set. > > An alternative would be to have a shield hint tag, like > > shield_flavor=us_ca > > added, leaving network=us_i. Then users that don't care about sign > variants jus see us highways, and renderers get their hints. Or perhaps > renderers know that a highway is in CA. Or maybe the shield_flavor is > needed because we're trying to match each road's actual signs, and they > aren't consistent. Or maybe it's shield_flavour. What about: addr:country=us addr:state=ca network=us or addr:country=us addr:state=ca network=i These provide the same information in a standard way and there's no debating about whether they tag for the renderer or not. Cheers, Adam ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
> > > The lower case has nothing to do with a renderer, just OSM convention > for key value pairs other than name. > network name is an officially documented and commonly used name. it should be treated like the name tag or the ref tag. how else could a renderer come up with the correct use if there is no symbol? And it's common use to have uppercase network tags in other countries. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
> > > I'm in danger of spending more time flaming than fixing the map, but > have always been interested in the database schema aspect of OSM. > Evolving tags is messier than a designed scheme, but I see the > wisdom of > how it avoids the wrong design persisting. Still, I think it may make > sense to try to design each microfeature. > good catch. total chaos yet still very useful data and fun work > The US highways in California are really (I think) regular US > highways, > but CA uses a different kind of sign. So tagging then us_us_ca seems > again like tagging for the renderer. This is sort of OK, perhaps, but > it bothers me perhaps because it's doing so in a denormalized way. > Database users that care if something is a US highway will then have > to > have a list of tags and check against that set. > many states had(have?) different signs. wikimedia has lots of examples. > An alternative would be to have a shield hint tag, like > > shield_flavor=us_ca > posted earlier. if someone is willing to write the rules for a renderer perfect. but shortterm it's easier to add a symbol ref like proposed here http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging > added, leaving network=us_i. Then users that don't care about sign > variants jus see us highways, and renderers get their hints. Or > perhaps > renderers know that a highway is in CA. Or maybe the shield_flavor is > needed because we're trying to match each road's actual signs, and > they > aren't consistent. Or maybe it's shield_flavour. > > For Route 66, I'm not clear on whether it is a historic route and the > current legal route is elsewhere. If so, the the historic > designation is > part of the actual designation, not a rendering hint. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On 13 Apr 2009, at 5:36 , Adam Schreiber wrote: > > What about: > > addr:country=us > addr:state=ca > network=us > > or > > addr:country=us > addr:state=ca > network=i > network should be US, I, all signs use uppercase, there can be so many uses for the data. network should reflect the real usage not for one specific renderer. if it's for mapnik only something like mapnik:network could be used. but this is really ugly and hard to convince mappers to add it. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 16:55 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > It contains all you need to pick the correct sign. But you need the > > whole knowledge about signs for all states, county ... > > as an example California uses different signs for US routes but the > > same for interstates. > > Well, if the US ones are different, the Interstate ones are different > for the same reason based on what i've seen in Northern California on > I-5, US-199 and US-101: California's egotistical enough to put it's > name on all route markers regardless of size. "Interstate California 5, > US California 199", etc. network=us_us would be better than nothing for US 101 and US 199, in my opinion. But if the local expert wants them to be rendered "right" why not use network=us_us_ca ? US network, US Route, California variant, and create a us_us_ca.png? Likewise, network=us_i_ca for the Interstate signs. Should work for Route 66 historic signs too. network=us_us_historic ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 20:26 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > Paul Johnson writes: > > > Why make this more complicated than it has to be? Leave the names on > > the underlying way, not the relations; leave the refs on the relations, > > not the underlying ways. Then it's a matter of fixing mapnik and t...@h to > > do the right thing, since relations are set up better to handle things > > like route symbols. > > I don't follow why you think the name belongs on the way. I would think > that if there was a named road in a state that should be relation, and > that relation a member of the interstate relation for the state, and > that a member of the entire interstate relation. The key property to be > supported is arbitrarily nested relations. I like names and refs where they make the most sense. If we get full (super-) relation support we have many options that work when they are right for the situation. > > I'm not logged in on the wiki right now to fix this on the relations > > list page, but we should probably recommend including a URL to a freely > > reproducible SVG of the route marker so someone has the motivation to > > fix rendering of numbered highways to use refs on relations in addition > > to (or better yet: instead of) underlying ways, they can render > > something other than the fugly ref symbols currently used, and instead > > use the same symbol used along the actual route. > > I don't see why symbol source is related to whether the ref is on a > relation or a way. But I agree that having symbols someplace where all > renderers can get at them would be nice. I made mine from wikimedia stock. I think they still need some fussing and attention to get them right. Perhaps a script will do better. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On 12 Apr 2009, at 11:58 , Richard Weait wrote: > On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:23 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote: >> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:39:45 -0700 >> Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >>> 2 relations are easier. adding role to thousands of members is a >>> pain. and we need to split relations with API 0.6 anyway >> >> So how do we handle the case where a US route is cosigned with an >> interstate? >> >> 1. add both motorways to new route relations that signify the >> direction >> of the original US route, and have no relation between those >> relations >> and the original US route? >> 2. Have both ways part of the original US route, with no direction >> information? >> 3. Same as number one, but have the new us routes added to a >> "super-relation" for the original US route > > One relation for the Interstate. One relation for the US Route. They > each have ways (or sub-relations) for members. Where they are > cosigned, > the ways or sub-relations are members of both relations. > yes this the best approach and it avoids the ugly ref=US XXX;US YYY syntax on the ways > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:23 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:39:45 -0700 > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > > 2 relations are easier. adding role to thousands of members is a > > pain. and we need to split relations with API 0.6 anyway > > So how do we handle the case where a US route is cosigned with an > interstate? > > 1. add both motorways to new route relations that signify the direction > of the original US route, and have no relation between those relations > and the original US route? > 2. Have both ways part of the original US route, with no direction > information? > 3. Same as number one, but have the new us routes added to a > "super-relation" for the original US route One relation for the Interstate. One relation for the US Route. They each have ways (or sub-relations) for members. Where they are cosigned, the ways or sub-relations are members of both relations. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:14 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:31:22 -0400 > Richard Weait wrote: > > Perhaps direction=North|South|West|East, or cardinal=North|South|West| > > East? > > On the ways? Then what about > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrong-way_concurrency#Wrong-way_concurrency ? > > On the relations, well, then those make sense (although I don't really > support direction on the ways). I was replying to a relations comment, so yes, direction on relations, not ways. I'm beginning to think that only local mechanical tags should be on the way. Like a bridge, basic road construction, number of lanes. Anything repetitive should be promoted to the next relation up. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 10:38 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote: > network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit > network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit > network=us_ny # NY State Route > network=us_ny_county # > > That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like tagging > for the renderer, and something that would be easy for the renderer to > figure out. What about us_i and then have renderers find the right > shield for the number of digits? Yes, kinda, sorta. Getting the renderer / shield symbolizer to select the right image is better. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 04:39 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote: > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:12 -0500 > Ian Dees wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations. > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations > > > > > > > Since interstate highways are usually two separate one-way ways, > > which way (or both?) do we add to the relation? > > US routes can also become two separate one-ways when becoming > express ways or trunk ways, while being a regular two-way street the > rest of the way, so it probably doesn't make sense to have separate > directions. Perhaps a proposal can be made for having > role=North|South|East|West for type=route relations? Perhaps direction=North|South|West|East, or cardinal=North|South|West| East? > Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as > the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name="I 90", and > network=US:IL, ref=58 would have name="IL 58" in the relations. I prefer "_" to ":" or ";" in this case as "_" can be used in a filename without escaping. network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit network=us_ny # NY State Route network=us_ny_county # and so on. The network value plugs directly into the shield symbolizer in mapnik for an easy renderer fix. The shield images can be network_us_i_3.png to keep them all in order in the directory. I've got a demonstration of highway shields working here: http://weait.com/maps/ Please be gentle on this unsuspecting box and narrow pipe. To make shields work for everybody, I'd like to see - "network=" supported in highway ways, relations and super-relations - further graphics work to refine the highway shield symbols for size / centering - wide adoption of the newly supported network tag. - repair of the many broken ref= tags that read I-190 or even Interstate 190, etc. Blog entry with more details here. http://weait.com/content/badges-badges Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [Talk-us] Interstate Highways Relations List
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 10:26 -0400, Adam Schreiber wrote: > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Richard Weait wrote: > > Blog entry with more details here. > > http://weait.com/content/badges-badges > > The highway badges you've added look great. Are you working on > pushing your changes upstream? Can do. Not ready to commit though. I had to use dirty-hacks to make it look okay. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
