Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
On 01/03/2011 08:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote: On 01/03/2011 05:14 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Paul Johnson baloo-PVOPTusIyP/sroww+9z...@public.gmane.org wrote: On 01/01/2011 09:45 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Yes - Seattle's Alaskan Way Viaduct. It seems like a clear motorway to me, but a local has tagged it as trunk. Alaska has intersections on at least one of it's three decks, though. The lower level is Alaskan Way, a surface street. Above it are two levels of Alaskan Way Viaduct, one in each direction. It's the second and third levels I'm talking about here. Given that ramps into and out of the viaduct hit at nearly-right angles from out between buildings with no merging room, I'm not sure they really qualify as what one would expect in motorway quality ramps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeGUSMssl7kt=0m15s There's not much merging room (no worse than on many Interstates), but it's nowhere near a right angle. I'm familiar with the ramp, the tightness of the corner and the space in which to merge is comparable to your standard corner-cuts on major boulevards. Unless we're actually going to suggest that 71st and Memorial are both motorways... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.060853lon=-95.886224zoom=18layers=M signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On 01/03/2011 10:08 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Also, is it now correct to not tag (network, ref) the individual ways that are part of a route relation? What about name? Is it correct to remove those existing tags from the ways (and ensure they are on the relation)? I'm not talking about a large-scale bot update, but as long as I'm editing them for some other reason anyway. No, it's not correct to remove refs from ways. I really would like to hear wider input on this, still, as it really doesn't make sense to waste the way's ref tag for refs that don't belong to the way, but the route that uses the way... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On 01/03/2011 09:52 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: At 2011-01-02 19:46, Paul Johnson wrote: On 01/01/2011 11:55 AM, Richard Weait wrote: I've been adding more highway shields to the shield renderer. Most recently I've added a shield for Historic Route 66. http://weait.com:8080/map/shield.html?lat=40.36679lon=-89.10653zoom=16layers=BTF Cool. Shouldn't the relation be tagged: network=US:US ref=66 modifier=HISTORIC Technically, probably shouldn't exist, since US-66 hasn't existed since sometime in the late 1980s and it's using the recreational brown signs today. Given the number of times US-66's route has changed, I'm not sure it even makes sense to use relations for this without qualifying the era. according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging ? Also, is it now correct to not tag (network, ref) the individual way that are part of a route relation? What about name? Is it correct to remove those existing tags from the ways (and ensure they are on the relation)? I'm not talking about a large-scale bot update, but as long as I'm editing them for some other reason anyway. Eh, OK-66 and Old US-66 and USBR-66 are all in my neighborhood. What is USBR-66? US Bike Route. I'm thinking Oklahoma jumped the gun on posting it as such since as far as I can tell, only 1 and 76 exist so far in that network (and Oklahoma's not even using the right signs for that). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On 01/03/2011 08:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeGUSMssl7kt=0m15s There's not much merging room (no worse than on many Interstates), but it's nowhere near a right angle. I'm familiar with the ramp, the tightness of the corner and the space in which to merge is comparable to your standard corner-cuts on major boulevards. Unless we're actually going to suggest that 71st and Memorial are both motorways... http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=36.060853lon=-95.886224zoom=18layers=M I think you just admitted defeat. People, look at his example. He posted two surface streets with cross traffic (and presumably unlimited access from adjacent properties). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
No, it's not correct to remove refs from ways. I really would like to hear wider input on this, still, as it really doesn't make sense to waste the way's ref tag for refs that don't belong to the way, but the route that uses the way... I agree - it's premature to redefine the usage of ref until a number of renderers are getting route information from other sources such as the relation. [ Whatever happened to the discussion on highway tagging consensus? Is it happening on the Wiki now? I thought there was enough information to move toward a consensus but I couldn't follow it all on mailing list messages. ] ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On 1/4/11 3:18 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 01/03/2011 10:08 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: Also, is it now correct to not tag (network, ref) the individual ways that are part of a route relation? What about name? Is it correct to remove those existing tags from the ways (and ensure they are on the relation)? I'm not talking about a large-scale bot update, but as long as I'm editing them for some other reason anyway. No, it's not correct to remove refs from ways. I really would like to hear wider input on this, still, as it really doesn't make sense to waste the way's ref tag for refs that don't belong to the way, but the route that uses the way... rendering engines haven't, by and large, shifted over to using ref tags on the relations. while i think they should, i also don't think we ought to cause the massive level of breakage that would ensue if they just got removed. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
At 2011-01-04 00:16, Paul Johnson wrote: On 01/03/2011 09:52 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: network=US:US ref=66 modifier=HISTORIC Technically, probably shouldn't exist, since US-66 hasn't existed since sometime in the late 1980s and it's using the recreational brown signs today. Given the number of times US-66's route has changed, I'm not sure it even makes sense to use relations for this without qualifying the era. There seems to have been some sort of co-ordinated effort because we have those signs in CA, too. Along much of the route along the San Gabriel mountains foothills (Huntington, Alosta, Foothill Blvds), there are these signs: https://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/DSCQ2464.CA_US66_Historic.small.jpg?attredirects=0 . The eastern portion of this (from ~San Dimas to San Bernardino) is currently CA-66, and may be occasionally signed that way (though I can't seem to put my finger on one at the moment). In Monrovia, they've signed it with the old-style US-66 with a CA on it: https://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/DSCQ2440.CA_US66.small.jpg?attredirects=0 , even though it is not part of CA-66 and US-66 no longer exists. Glendora actually changed the name of Foothill Blvd to Route 66 and signed it this way: https://sites.google.com/site/am909geo/osm-1/DSCQ2662.Route_66_Street.small.jpg?attredirects=0 -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
* Mike N. nice...@att.net [2011-01-04 06:58 -0500]: No, it's not correct to remove refs from ways. I really would like to hear wider input on this I agree - it's premature to redefine the usage of ref until a number of renderers are getting route information from other sources such as the relation. I also agree with NE2. The current OSM standard is to look at way refs to get the routes they belong to. [ Whatever happened to the discussion on highway tagging consensus? Is it happening on the Wiki now? I thought there was enough information to move toward a consensus but I couldn't follow it all on mailing list messages. ] There was rough consensus that the current approach is more or less right, but disagreement on several specifics. Richard Weait suggested that further discussion probably wouldn't accomplish much without a sample implementation, so I've (in my copious free time, sigh) been working on some improvements to the rendering chain, including some modifications to osm2pgsql. I'm not sure when I'll have something reasonably complete, but once I do, I plan to start the discussion again with my code as a reference point. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Today's subliminal thought is: --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: There was rough consensus that the current approach is more or less right, but disagreement on several specifics. Richard Weait suggested that further discussion probably wouldn't accomplish much without a sample implementation, so I've (in my copious free time, sigh) been working on some improvements to the rendering chain, including some modifications to osm2pgsql. I'm not sure when I'll have something reasonably complete, but once I do, I plan to start the discussion again with my code as a reference point. What changes to osm2pgsql are you making? As far as I remember it already creates 1 long linestring for contiguous elements of a route relation and puts the relation's ref tags on that linestring. We only need to modify the mapnik style sheets to get them to use SVG shields (so we can put the value of the ref in the empty slot of the SVG shield). Also, rweait has an example implementation floating around somewhere. I'm not sure how much work he had to do to get it to work, but it came up pretty quick after the discussion started. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2011-01-04 09:36 -0600]: What changes to osm2pgsql are you making? In my opinion, any approach has to be backwards compatible with having ref tags on ways, if only because it's worked so well in Europe. Thus, I want to be able to tell whether a given way is a member of a route relation (and render its ref tag the old way if it isn't), so I'm adding a table to do joins between relations and their members. Also, rweait has an example implementation floating around somewhere. I'm not sure how much work he had to do to get it to work, but it came up pretty quick after the discussion started. If I recall correctly, Richard's rendering completely abandons the old rendering style, which I don't want to do. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- The class was learning about some revolt in which some peasants had wanted to stop being peasants and, since the nobles had won, had stopped being peasants *really quickly*. -- _Soul Music_, Terry Pratchett --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: If I recall correctly, Richard's rendering completely abandons the old rendering style, which I don't want to do. Then let me make this point absolutely clear. Don't look at the background layer. It doesn't matter at all. Look at the shield overlay. The shield overlay could be added to any rendering layer. Here you go. The shield layer on top of OSM's default mapnik rendering. http://weait.com:8080/map/shield2.html?zoom=10lat=43.04117lon=-78.92749layers=0BTT Now you can switch backgrounds and switch the shield layer on and off to see what's included in the shield layer. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] NY: replacing county borders
On 1/3/11 8:42 PM, Richard Welty wrote: On 1/3/11 8:11 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: Sounds like a sane way forward to me. Are you using the new 2010 files that they're slowly releasing? Do you plan to keep all the FIPS info as you go? i haven't yet seen 2010 boundary files of any sort yet. i'd certainly prefer to use the, but have no idea what sort of timeline the census bureau is working to. i looked a little further. i see tiger 2010 shp files for much (perhaps all) of NY now, but the extracts of boundaries have not been updated for any states. i would imagine they are going to finish all the shp files for all the states before they look at the extracts of borders. the plan for tiger (according to their web page) is to finish all the shp files by February. so i'm going to kill time by making this code more general, so that it can handle all the boundary extracts that are likely to be wanted (states, counties, incorporated places with legit boundaries) and put the code in a state where it can potentially be given away. i also, from looking at some of the shp files for Rensselaer County NY, think that anyone interested in doing tiger 2010 imports/replacements really needs to familiarize themselves thoroughly with the data, both old and new before pulling the trigger on an import. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
* Richard Weait rich...@weait.com [2011-01-04 11:49 -0500]: On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: If I recall correctly, Richard's rendering completely abandons the old rendering style, which I don't want to do. Then let me make this point absolutely clear. Don't look at the background layer. It doesn't matter at all. Look at the shield overlay. The shield overlay could be added to any rendering layer. What I want, however, is to mix the two styles, but in a different way than overlaying them. I want to suppress the old shields if and only if there's a route relation. That's not a disparagement of your rendering; it's the answer to Ian's question about my changes to osm2pgsql. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- P.S. Perl's master plan (or what passes for one) is to take over the world like English did. Er, *as* English did... -- Larry Wall --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] US highway tagging (was Re: highway shields: get your kicks, where?)
On 01/04/2011 10:49 AM, Richard Weait wrote: Then let me make this point absolutely clear. Don't look at the background layer. It doesn't matter at all. Look at the shield overlay. The shield overlay could be added to any rendering layer. Not sure if you’re looking for commentary on the shield overlay in general, but it seems like it has some problems. Take a look at I-39/US-51 here[1]. Only one shield for I-39 until you scroll all the way south to Bloomington, IL. I don’t know if that’s because it’s prioritizing US shields over interstate shields or what, but it should show both at equal frequency. It also seems like there are way too many US-51 shields. I assume it’s not expected to display state routes, at least not yet. I’d give the shields a black outline rather than putting them on a solid black box. Other than that it looks great. —Alex Mauer “hawke” 1. http://weait.com:8080/map/shield2.html?zoom=9lat=44.90346lon=-89.61928layers=0BTT ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
