date:20200305

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging historic US routes

2020-03-05 Per discussione Paul Johnson

Try network=US:US:Historic on your route relation.  Might not render, but
you can at least give renderers *something* for renderers to latch onto if
they want that information. ref=US Historic xx seems to be the way tagging
for that if you want to go that route.  I recommend, until we can finally
kill the route-tagging-on-way "ref=*" legacy method, to implement both,
since it makes it more obvious if the ref=* tagging gets munged later.

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:46 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> This weekend I drove part of AZ-79 and noticed that Arizona has now put up
> some “Historic US 80” signage. On the sections of highway I drove, every
> occurrence of a AZ-79 route marker now also has a historic US-80 route
> marker. (Back in the day that highway was dual signed as US-80 and US-89
> but I guess nobody cares about having historic US-89 markers at present.)
>
> I was in a rental car and eventually figured out how to get Apple CarPlay
> setup so I could use the OSM based Maps.me app to show the roads I was on.
> In doing so I saw that Maps.me was showing the road with dual highway
> shields: A AZ shield with 79 and a US shield with 80. Since US-80 was
> decommissioned a long time ago (at least in Arizona and California) this
> seems wrong so I thought I’d look at the tagging.
>
> The tagging is on a route relation [1], at least I don’t see tagging on
> the individual way segments that would render as “US 80”.
>
> How should this be tagged?
>
> Casting about for examples of what to do, it seems that the Lincoln
> Highway [2] relation is quite different. And US 66 in California has no
> historic route relation at all, just the current county road route [3].
>
> There is a German page on the wiki about “route=historic” [4]. My reading
> of a machine translation of it implies that instead of “route=road” the
> historic US 80 relation should have “route=historic” and “historic=road”.
>
> Suggestions?
>
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9230611
> [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3958115
> [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/205719338
> [4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhistoric
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Tagging historic US routes

2020-03-05 Per discussione Tod Fitch

This weekend I drove part of AZ-79 and noticed that Arizona has now put up some 
“Historic US 80” signage. On the sections of highway I drove, every occurrence 
of a AZ-79 route marker now also has a historic US-80 route marker. (Back in 
the day that highway was dual signed as US-80 and US-89 but I guess nobody 
cares about having historic US-89 markers at present.)

I was in a rental car and eventually figured out how to get Apple CarPlay setup 
so I could use the OSM based Maps.me app to show the roads I was on. In doing 
so I saw that Maps.me was showing the road with dual highway shields: A AZ 
shield with 79 and a US shield with 80. Since US-80 was decommissioned a long 
time ago (at least in Arizona and California) this seems wrong so I thought I’d 
look at the tagging.

The tagging is on a route relation [1], at least I don’t see tagging on the 
individual way segments that would render as “US 80”.

How should this be tagged?

Casting about for examples of what to do, it seems that the Lincoln Highway [2] 
relation is quite different. And US 66 in California has no historic route 
relation at all, just the current county road route [3].

There is a German page on the wiki about “route=historic” [4]. My reading of a 
machine translation of it implies that instead of “route=road” the historic US 
80 relation should have “route=historic” and “historic=road”.

Suggestions?


[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9230611
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3958115
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/205719338
[4] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Dhistoric


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-ko] MapRoulette challenges to fix the road network in South Korea

2020-03-05 Per discussione Andrew Wiseman via Talk-ko

Hello everyone,

This is Andrew again from Apple. I wanted to let everyone know that we just
updated the MapRoulette challenges related to road network issues in South
Korea with new OSM data.

You can find the challenges in this MapRoulette project:
https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/39283 and they include things like
overly sharp road angles, roads that cross but aren’t connected, roads that
aren’t connected to anything, overlapping roads, turn restrictions, roads that
are close but not connected to others, and other similar issues. I plan to work
on some of them myself too.

If you haven’t used it before, MapRoulette lets you go through potential issues
in OSM data one by one and either correct them or indicate they are not a
problem. The challenges were created with our Atlas data analysis tool:
https://github.com/osmlab/atlas .

If you aren’t sure what challenge to try, sharp angles or crossing roads are
probably the easiest but they should all be fairly straightforward.

Please let me know if you have any suggestions or feedback. Thank you!

Andrew

자동 번역 :

여러분 안녕하세요.

애플의 앤드류입니다. 한국의 도로 네트워크 문제와 관련된 MapRoulette 과제를 새로운 OSM 데이터로 업데이트했음을 모든 사람에게
알리고 싶습니다.

이 MapRoulette 프로젝트 (https://maproulette.org/browse/projects/39283)에서 도전 과제를 찾을
수 있으며 지나치게 날카로운 도로 각도, 교차하지만 연결되지 않은 도로, 연결되지 않은 도로 등이 포함됩니다. , 겹치는 도로, 회전 제한,
가까이 있지만 다른 도로와 연결되지 않은 도로 및 기타 유사한 문제. 나는 그들 중 일부도 스스로 일할 계획이다.

이전에 사용하지 않은 경우 MapRoulette를 사용하면 OSM 데이터의 잠재적 인 문제를 하나씩 살펴보고이를 수정하거나 문제가 아님을 표시
할 수 있습니다. 과제는 Atlas 데이터 분석 도구 (https://github.com/osmlab/atlas)를 사용하여 작성되었습니다.

어떤 도전을 시도해야할지 잘 모르는 경우 날카로운 각도 나 교차로가 가장 쉬운 방법 일 수 있지만 모두 매우 간단해야합니다.

49 matches

Mail list logo