Re: [Talk-us] US Interstate exit junction exit_to tag
At 2011-04-09 11:02, Paul Johnson wrote: On 04/08/2011 11:47 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: I would omit the hyphen as "CA 247" for consistency sake. I'm not sure which post this referred to. My understanding of the discussion on this subject was that people agree that the hyphen is necessary to join the parts of a highway number together to avoid ambiguities, and because it normally appears that way in text. However, for some reason, it was agreed that only in the "ref" tag, the hyphen would be replaced with a space. Everywhere else, though, it retains the hyphen. -- Alan Mintz ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] default to potlatch 1?
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 02:23 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Val Kartchner wrote: > > I can confirm that this is still happening. > > Fixed now. Thanks for the reports. > > Richard Richard, It has been fixed. I'm back to using Potlatch 2 again. Thanks. - Val - ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 04/09/2011 07:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
> So it's clear from the responses that there are differing needs here:
>
> * Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code
> in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are
> states where "SR" is more easily understood.
Most data consumers are tuned to use the USPS code and adjust the shield
as appropriate. Let's not tag incorrectly for renderers that don't get
this right.
> There is nothing stopping anyone from tagging state highways with
> conceptual-level tags this instant. One could, say,
> add "highway:network:us:fl=123" tags to Florida state highway 123,
> leaving the ref tag as "SR 123". Map users see something they're
> familiar with ("SR" instead of "FL"), and automated agents of OSM data
> get a unique key to identify the concept of "that network of highways in
> the US state of Florida". It's a win-win.
Why overly complicate tagging on ways in such a matter to describe
routes? That's what we have relations for, and it handles such
situations *very nicely*. Rather than inventing another way to tag
incorrectly for the renderer (the whole ref= tag on ways is not ideal
for a lot of reasons stemming from the fact the project didn't
necessarily expect to extend into parts of the world where you might
have six different unique highway networks in a single state (Texas, I'm
looking at you, with your TX, LOOP, SPUR, NASA, REC, and FM routes) and
needing to handle routes before relations existed.
Now that relations *do* exist, and we have a more or less established
way of handling routes using relations, overly complicating way tagging
to describe an entirely different entity (the route, which often
incorporates many different ways) simply isn't a good idea.
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 Interstate exit junction exit_to tag
On 04/08/2011 11:47 AM, Alan Mintz wrote: I would omit the hyphen as "CA 247" for consistency sake. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 04/08/2011 07:16 PM, Toby Murray wrote: > Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive. > > Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on > Kansas highways as "K-xx" which is how people usually pronounce it. > Street signs usually just have the number inside of the sunflower logo > without any kind of lettering like this: > > http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3667822945_b4606af872.jpg Off topic: I didn't know it was supposed to be a sunflower, so the first time I took US 75 to get to Williamsburg, I got a little giggle out of the sign for K-58, because my brain parsed it as "Explosion 58". signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 4/9/2011 1:52 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: On 04/08/2011 03:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote: i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't "make it go away" en masse. For consistency with the rest of the country, would you mind using the state abbreviation? A number by itself is ambiguous if you're not using relations (and thus have a network tag for that information). Almost anything is ambiguous worldwide. Does DE mean Delaware or Germany? Does CO mean Colorado or county? For that matter, which county does CR mean? There's certainly no local ambiguity in Florida, especially since every state road is in a relation. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 04/08/2011 02:11 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote: > On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >>> On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote: I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State Highways on ways (not relations)? "PA-44" or "44". >>> There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a >>> prefix is used, would have SR, not FL. Pennsylvania, on the other >>> hand, would use PA. >> >> IMO, the state's postal abbreviation followed by the route number >> should be used. This makes them easily distinguished from US or > > But this is not always correct. In Michigan, for example, all state highways > are named M-nn, with M- being part of the road's actual name in many places. > It is never, ever, written MI-nn. > > States like Wisconsin get tricky, too. "Wis nn" is common, but so is the > much older "STH nn" (for State Trunk Highway). For consistency's sake, if it's part of the primary or secondary state highway systems (ie, MO 43, MO FF) it should have just the state's common abbreviation, not the abbreviation that only the locals would know. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 04/08/2011 03:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote: >> i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags > > For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states, > I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't "make it go > away" en masse. For consistency with the rest of the country, would you mind using the state abbreviation? A number by itself is ambiguous if you're not using relations (and thus have a network tag for that information). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 04/08/2011 02:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > I think ref=OK 20;AR 42 (or equally ref=AR 42;OK 20) is the appropriate > tag there. Though a ref with two different states involved is fairly rare, about the only spot I can think of where that would apply offhand would be WA 500 if they ever start running the ferry to Chinook Landing on the Oregon side of the river again (in which WA 500 would run from the landing to Marine Drive in Oregon) or the example you gave of AR 42; OK 20 running down the Arkansas/Oklahoma border. Using the NE2-suggested "SH" or "SR" would definitely be ambiguous in many, if not most, cases (Oregon uses both state highways and state routes (ie, State Route 99E is also State Highway 1E), while Washington only uses State Routes, though in most cases, "SR 10" would be ambiguous since both have them. Likewise, both Oklahoma and Arkansas use State Highways, so "SH 42; SH 20" would be ambiguous to a point of confusion. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 04/08/2011 01:00 PM, James Mast wrote: > I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once > and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State > Highways on ways (not relations)? "PA-44" or "44". The reason I'm > asking is because I've seen several people put the state abbreviation in > the ref field and some people don't. Heck, I'm guilty of doing it both > ways myself. In some states you see it both ways (NY;KY), some states > you see just the number (FL), and some states have the state > abbreviation + number (CA). > > So, we really need to all come to an agreement on which way we should > use in all the states. Because it doesn't look good having two > different ways to do it and it should be standardized. Should be "OK 51B" or "KS 66" or "FL A1A", state abbreviation, space, number. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] MapQuest release 3 new APIs / tools - XAPI (JXAPI), NPI (new!), Broken Poly tool (new!)
On 04/08/2011 10:58 AM, Antony Pegg wrote: > Hello all, > > MapQuest has pushed out three new developer tools for OSM. Hopefully > you will find them useful. > > Full details are here on the developer blog: > http://devblog.mapquest.com/2011/04/07/xapi-npi-broken_polygons/ > > but to summarize: > > http://open.mapquest.com/xapi > - A running copy of Ian Dees' JXAPI plus a simple GUI based on Serge's > UIXAPI - hopefully this will help spread the load and add one more XAPI > instance to the pool Looks like this should be http://open.mapquestapi.com/xapi/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] downgraded highway classification in US
On 4/9/2011 11:18 AM, Richard Welty wrote: i wouldn't, i think, upgrade everything that has full striping as that would mean that most all roads in, say, Saratoga County end up tertiary as the towns there like to spend money on stripes. a standard based on striping makes more sense in Rensselaer County where the towns, for the most part, don't spend a lot of money on painting the roads. Certainly. And there are many tertiaries or secondaries in the US that don't have a centerline. It's just one more data point to consider. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] downgraded highway classification in US
On 4/9/11 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote: there are some notes in the Wiki about downgrading state highways to tertiary if they don't connect up to other secondary roads at reasonable intervals. in the spirit of this, when i encountered a county route in Rensselaer County that was a stub that only reached a couple of houses and a trailer park, i decided to try tagging it as residential, but included the ref tag for CR 9; the road in question is Lauster Terrace. As you can see here, Mapnik doesn't handle ref tags on a residential road particularly well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.55316&lon=-73.67955&zoom=17&layers=M before i rush off and open a mapnik ticket, i thought i'd broach this question: how far should we downgrade routes in these circumstances? was residential too far in this case, should i have stopped at unclassified? Residential and unclassified are rendered identically. I've never seen this particular bug - usually it's text like this but at least placed properly. Residential does look accurate, given the dead-end, but I'd also consider tertiary due to the centerline. Is CR 9 actually signed, or is it just an internal designation used by the county? If the latter, unsigned_ref might be a better choice. yes, it is signed. i caught it out of the corner of my eye when passing by, it's not on any of the unofficial reference lists, and i wasn't expecting to find it there. it's one of a couple very short CRs i've stumbled across in Rensselaer County that aren't on any of the lists. i'm not averse to putting it back to tertiary given it's an official CR. i wouldn't, i think, upgrade everything that has full striping as that would mean that most all roads in, say, Saratoga County end up tertiary as the towns there like to spend money on stripes. a standard based on striping makes more sense in Rensselaer County where the towns, for the most part, don't spend a lot of money on painting the roads. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 4/9/2011 10:21 AM, Toby Murray wrote: This explicitly split out network information should be present in route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly "tagging for the renderer" because current renderers don't use route relations. And tagging for redundancy, since relations break easily (we'll see a lot of this if/when the license change happens). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
* At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to
represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique
ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Why? We use the same prefixes for many countries, and many countries
have duplicate internal numbering systems (M1 north of London and in
Northern Ireland).
There is nothing stopping anyone from tagging state highways with
conceptual-level tags this instant. One could, say, add
"highway:network:us:fl=123" tags to Florida state highway 123, leaving
the ref tag as "SR 123". Map users see something they're familiar with
("SR" instead of "FL"), and automated agents of OSM data get a unique
key to identify the concept of "that network of highways in the US state
of Florida". It's a win-win.
This doesn't work because of overlaps. What network would the overlap of
NY 55 and CR 11 be in? http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/55.html Or,
hell, the already-mentioned example of Arkansas's 20 and Missouri's 43
along the state line? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:End_Missouri_43.jpg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] downgraded highway classification in US
On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Richard Welty wrote: there are some notes in the Wiki about downgrading state highways to tertiary if they don't connect up to other secondary roads at reasonable intervals. in the spirit of this, when i encountered a county route in Rensselaer County that was a stub that only reached a couple of houses and a trailer park, i decided to try tagging it as residential, but included the ref tag for CR 9; the road in question is Lauster Terrace. As you can see here, Mapnik doesn't handle ref tags on a residential road particularly well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.55316&lon=-73.67955&zoom=17&layers=M before i rush off and open a mapnik ticket, i thought i'd broach this question: how far should we downgrade routes in these circumstances? was residential too far in this case, should i have stopped at unclassified? Residential and unclassified are rendered identically. I've never seen this particular bug - usually it's text like this but at least placed properly. Residential does look accurate, given the dead-end, but I'd also consider tertiary due to the centerline. Is CR 9 actually signed, or is it just an internal designation used by the county? If the latter, unsigned_ref might be a better choice. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Toby Murray wrote: > route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly "tagging > for the renderer" because current renderers don't use route relations. > > Richard Weait has done some work on this: > > http://weait.com/content/badges-badges > and > http://weait.com:8080/map/shield.html?lat=40.36679&lon=-89.10653&zoom=16&layers=BTF Nah, shields on ways is fine for a single way / single network. The overlapping / co-signed networks want relations and I've been rendering them for months. No reason everybody else can't as well. I'm not expecting highway shields to appear on a layer on osm.org, though. Shields are too specific to North America. And tagging? ref=number portion only network=countrycode_statecode_[location details as required]networkcode_variant Interstate 95. ref=95; network=us_i US 66 historic. ref=66; network=us_us_historic York Regional Road 8. ref=8; network=ca_on_york ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote: > Of course, it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the > conceptual-level tag, be it "highway:network:us:fl=123", or > "highway:network=us:fl:123", or "highway=fl:123", but that's a > diversion from the crux of the issue, which is the overloaded use of > the "ref" tag. This explicitly split out network information should be present in route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly "tagging for the renderer" because current renderers don't use route relations. Richard Weait has done some work on this: http://weait.com/content/badges-badges and http://weait.com:8080/map/shield.html?lat=40.36679&lon=-89.10653&zoom=16&layers=BTF Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways
So it's clear from the responses that there are differing needs here:
Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are states where "SR" is more easily understood.
At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Currently, the "ref" tag does double duty for both conceptual and rendering level concerns. That's the root cause of the problem here, and will continue to be, until the conceptual-level data is moved out of the "ref" tag into its own tag(s).
There is nothing stopping anyone from tagging state highways with conceptual-level tags this instant. One could, say, add "highway:network:us:fl=123" tags to Florida state highway 123, leaving the ref tag as "SR 123". Map users see something they're familiar with ("SR" instead of "FL"), and automated agents of OSM data get a unique key to identify the concept of "that network of highways in the US state of Florida". It's a win-win.
Of course, it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the conceptual-level tag, be it "highway:network:us:fl=123", or "highway:network=us:fl:123", or "highway=fl:123", but that's a diversion from the crux of the issue, which is the overloaded use of the "ref" tag.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] downgraded highway classification in US
there are some notes in the Wiki about downgrading state highways to tertiary if they don't connect up to other secondary roads at reasonable intervals. in the spirit of this, when i encountered a county route in Rensselaer County that was a stub that only reached a couple of houses and a trailer park, i decided to try tagging it as residential, but included the ref tag for CR 9; the road in question is Lauster Terrace. As you can see here, Mapnik doesn't handle ref tags on a residential road particularly well: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.55316&lon=-73.67955&zoom=17&layers=M before i rush off and open a mapnik ticket, i thought i'd broach this question: how far should we downgrade routes in these circumstances? was residential too far in this case, should i have stopped at unclassified? richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
