Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Dave F.]

On 07/12/2015 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:


I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
to the A161.


I think a zero-hour block is probably called for, if only to grab his 
attention.


Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Lester Caine]

On 07/12/15 19:20, Andrew Hain wrote:
> But surely I can see no obvious harm in the presence of the relations. Also 
> searching the database by reference doesn’t always work, for instance not all 
> road segments tagged  A1 in the UK are part of the road from London to 
> Edinburgh.

>>> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578

The question is more one of what is the point of adding another layer of
complexity that has to be maintained. The sample relation here has
numerous gaps and parallel elements that make it simply a unordered list
of elements. If any element on that list does not currently have an A37
tag then THAT needs to be fixed, and looking up all elements that are
tagged A37 should reproduce the same list, but these will be different
because currently elements of the A303 for example are incorrectly
related as A37. The ONLY way to correctly identify the Route North and
South is to trace the traffic path for each rather than randomly linking
elements which route to other paths. Every time a component of the road
system gets split then the relation also needs updating, but that may
not be easy to verify while the new road network needs to be correct.

If I want data on 'route' like A37 then the starting point is the ref
tag and traffic direction rather than a messed up list of elements.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 19:20 +, Andrew Hain wrote:
> But surely I can see no obvious harm in the presence of the relations. Also 
> searching the database by reference doesn’t always work, for instance not all 
> road segments tagged  A1 in the UK are part of the road from London to 
> Edinburgh.
> 
In the UK, there are obviously 2 roads with the ref=A1, although there
should only be one in GB.

As Richard pointed out, relations do raise the bar for new mappers and
add zero value to the map.

Phil (trigpoint)


>
> From: Chris Hill 
> Sent: 07 December 2015 10:27
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road
> 
> On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
> >> abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
> >> in the UK. Example:
> >>
> >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578
> >>
> >> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
> >> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
> >> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
> >> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.
> >>
> >> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
> >> duplication which can never be a good thing.
> >>
> >> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
> >> no reason for their existence.
> >>
> > I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
> > my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
> > to the A161.
> >
> > This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
> > A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
> > such relations, and the history is too big to view.delete
> >
> The author has not responded, so I have deleted the route relation for
> A161. I will use changeset comments on any more that I find in the UK to
> discuss why they are there - my expectation would be to delete any
> others but only after attempting to engage the author.
> 
> --
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Andrew Hain]

But surely I can see no obvious harm in the presence of the relations. Also 
searching the database by reference doesn’t always work, for instance not all 
road segments tagged  A1 in the UK are part of the road from London to 
Edinburgh.

--
Andrew


From: Chris Hill 
Sent: 07 December 2015 10:27
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
>> abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
>> in the UK. Example:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578
>>
>> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
>> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
>> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
>> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.
>>
>> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
>> duplication which can never be a good thing.
>>
>> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
>> no reason for their existence.
>>
> I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
> my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
> to the A161.
>
> This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
> A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
> such relations, and the history is too big to view.delete
>
The author has not responded, so I have deleted the route relation for
A161. I will use changeset comments on any more that I find in the UK to
discuss why they are there - my expectation would be to delete any
others but only after attempting to engage the author.

--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Chris Hill]

On 07/12/15 18:11, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote:

Hi

I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
in the UK. Example:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578

Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.

I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
duplication which can never be a good thing.

Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
no reason for their existence.


I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
to the A161.

This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
such relations, and the history is too big to view.delete

The author has not responded, so I have deleted the route relation for 
A161. I will use changeset comments on any more that I find in the UK to 
discuss why they are there - my expectation would be to delete any 
others but only after attempting to engage the author.


--
Cheers, Chris (chillly)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Philip Barnes]

On Mon, 2015-12-07 at 05:53 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:


> These route relations are pointless armchairing and make the map
> harder to
> edit for newbies to no benefit. If the user doesn't respond to
> changeset
> comments I would agree with deleting them.
> 
I agree Richard

The relations as added are completely pointless as he has not actually
joined the sections up where the could conceivably be mistaken for
multiplexes, but has merely created a collection of ways with the same
reference, some are even for B roads.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Philip Barnes]

On Sat, 2015-12-05 at 00:54 +, Dave F. wrote:
> Hi 
> 
> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user:
> abc26324 prompts me to ask/verify again the point of road relations
> in the UK. Example:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578
> 
> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people
> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not
> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be
> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.  
> 
> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag
> duplication which can never be a good thing.
> 
> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see
> no reason for their existence.
> 
I have noticed that he is at it again and has not responded to either
my comment with regards to the A50, or chillly's comments with regard
to the A161.

This time he has added a relation for the bits of the A1 that are not
A1(M), there is already an A1 relation. I again am not sure why we need
such relations, and the history is too big to view.

Phil (trigpoint)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[David Woolley]

On 07/12/15 13:11, Lester Caine wrote:

what is now the highways
agency


Recently re-branded Highways England!

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Richard Fairhurst]

Dave F. wrote:
> I've always read the brackets to mean 'leading to' or 'via' not as being 
> shared. From the Highway Code: "Motorways shown in brackets can 
> also be reached along the route indicated." 

Yes, exactly. Because they're just numbers, not routes, the brackets simply
mean "if you want the bit of the A11 that goes to Norwich, it's this way",
not that the road is both A14 and A11.

Interestingly[1], looking on G**gle Str**t V**w, even the few erroneous
examples of signposting "A123 / A456" without brackets appear to have been
replaced now. I knew of one, at Monmouth, and (thanks to a SABRE thread)
there appears to be one at Caerphilly too. The Kendal example sometimes
cited has been replaced.

Richard

[1] well, FSVO "interestingly"



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/route-relations-type-road-tp5861709p5861876.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Dave F.]

On 07/12/2015 12:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

Colin Smale wrote:

Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is
the primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown
within brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes
with the A26. It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes (A26)".
Is this done 100% consistently?

99.99% consistently, and that might actually be understating it. Anything
that is missing the brackets can be considered a signage error (I can only
think of one instance) and not worth constructing an entire data model
around.


I've always read the brackets to mean 'leading to' or 'via' not as being 
shared. From the Highway Code: "Motorways shown in brackets can also be 
reached along the route indicated." 
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/traffic-signs


Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Lester Caine]

On 07/12/15 12:53, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Historically there is a designated route concept in the UK in the sense that
> some countries have them, but it doesn't map to road numbers, has largely
> fallen from use, and is neither signposted nor verifiable:
> http://www.watsonlv.net/pdf/trunk_roads.pdf

I'm not sure of the current situation, but these were the routes that
were maintained and managed centrally via what is now the highways
agency? Rather than being a local council responsibility? Motorways have
replaced many of the original primary routes, but essentially this list
is still the base for the green trunk routes?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/12/2015 11:35, Colin Smale wrote:


Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is the 
primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown within 
brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes with the 
A26. It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes (A26)". Is this done 100% 
consistently?





If it helps, here's an Overpass query to search for refs with a 
semicolon in:


http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/d8v

An example mapped like that near me is 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/33276389#map=19/52.92697/-1.47667 , and 
I'm pretty sure that's not signed A601 (nothing is).  It may be signed 
A52, or perhaps nothing at all.  If you believe OS OpenData StreetView, 
it's the A601.  Other alleged examples locally are roundabouts which 
have signed exits but aren't obviously part of one road or another.


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Richard Fairhurst]

Colin Smale wrote:
> Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is 
> the primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown 
> within brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes 
> with the A26. It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes (A26)". 
> Is this done 100% consistently? 

99.99% consistently, and that might actually be understating it. Anything
that is missing the brackets can be considered a signage error (I can only
think of one instance) and not worth constructing an entire data model
around.

Dave and Derick are right in that any one road in the UK can only have one
ref, other than the unsignposted European E routes of course.

More fundamentally, these are "route relations". Road numbers in the UK,
unlike the US, do not represent "routes". They are just road numbers. There
are plenty of numbers in the UK where no-one would use that route to drive
from one end to another, or even to a halfway point, following the number
all the way. In many cases, such as the A47 between Birmingham and
Leicester, the concept of a route has long been lost.

Historically there is a designated route concept in the UK in the sense that
some countries have them, but it doesn't map to road numbers, has largely
fallen from use, and is neither signposted nor verifiable:
http://www.watsonlv.net/pdf/trunk_roads.pdf

These route relations are pointless armchairing and make the map harder to
edit for newbies to no benefit. If the user doesn't respond to changeset
comments I would agree with deleting them.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/route-relations-type-road-tp5861709p5861871.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Colin Smale]

You are referring to the "official" refs. Is it *possible* that the
signs disagree with the official data? To make things look more logical
for drivers? 

I ask this because we tend to give precedence in our mapping to what is
visible on road signs, rather than blindly following the official truth.


Where two roads are multiplexed, it looks like one of the refs is the
primary and is shown without brackets, and the other is shown within
brackets, such as the A22 near Uckfield which multiplexes with the A26.
It is shown as "Eastbourne A22 / Lewes (A26)". Is this done 100%
consistently? 

What about link roads between two motorways? Is it possible that they
are signed as one motorway (the one it leads to, nice and clear for the
driver) but administratively part of another? 

//colin

On 2015-12-07 12:09, Derick Rethans wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Dave F. wrote:
> 
>> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user: 
>> abc26324  prompts me to 
>> ask/verify again the point of road relations in the UK. Example:
>> 
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578
>> 
>> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people 
>> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not 
>> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be 
>> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.
>> 
>> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag 
>> duplication which can never be a good thing.
>> 
>> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see 
>> no reason for their existence.
> 
> My wife (works for DfT, did road ref assignments) claims that a road 
> segment can not share more than one ref. The "norwegian" situation of 
> the 32/35 like at 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329206956#map=13/59.5053/10.1548 can 
> not happen in the UK. In the UK, that situation is the A14 and A11 where 
> the A11 disappears for a strech to come back later. (Between junctions 
> 36 and 38, 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367772226#map=12/52.2445/0.3914)
> 
> The only "exception" is that roads with a ref can have names attached to 
> them too, but they're "unofficial" (such as the example at 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232728113#map=19/51.53625/-0.19143 
> which is both A5 and "Kilburn high Road").
> 
> There is some info in 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315783/road-classification-guidance.pdf,
>  
> but it's a bit vague on this part.
> 
> cheers,
> Derick
> 
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
 ___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] route relations type=road

[Derick Rethans]

On Sat, 5 Dec 2015, Dave F. wrote:

> I know this has been discussed before , but recent edits by user: 
> abc26324  prompts me to 
> ask/verify again the point of road relations in the UK. Example:
> 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/103301#map=10/51.2112/-2.5578
> 
> Route relations are meant to represent, err... routes taken by people 
> that transverse multiple different ways; such as bus cycle etc & not 
> just a 'collection' of things, especially when they can easily be 
> collated/extracted from the ref on the actual way.
> 
> I notice even the M4/M5 have one apiece. This has lead to tag 
> duplication which can never be a good thing.
> 
> Are there any roads in GB where references are shared? If not, I see 
> no reason for their existence.

My wife (works for DfT, did road ref assignments) claims that a road 
segment can not share more than one ref. The "norwegian" situation of 
the 32/35 like at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/329206956#map=13/59.5053/10.1548 can 
not happen in the UK. In the UK, that situation is the A14 and A11 where 
the A11 disappears for a strech to come back later. (Between junctions 
36 and 38, 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/367772226#map=12/52.2445/0.3914)

The only "exception" is that roads with a ref can have names attached to 
them too, but they're "unofficial" (such as the example at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/232728113#map=19/51.53625/-0.19143 
which is both A5 and "Kilburn high Road").

There is some info in 
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315783/road-classification-guidance.pdf,
 
but it's a bit vague on this part.


cheers,
Derick

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