Re: [Talk-us] Using OSM for emergency routing?
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: I don't think people want to use this as a this is your route and you must follow it. The idea would be that (a) dispatchers and emergency drivers could use the map and suggested route to give a better estimate on arrival time to first responders and (b) drivers could use it while driving to be reminded of existing emergency-only routes. Right. That's what I said sounds like a terrible idea. You really think drivers could use it while driving? Or did you mean that non-drivers could relay it to drivers? This would be MUCH better than what happens right now: a call to 911 goes in, depending on the jurisdiction the dispatcher either uses (a) Google Maps, (b) the county road data or (c) custom ESRI-based maps to look for the best unit to request a response. This particular guy (a driver in an ambulance) whips out his Garmin Nuvi GPS and enters the lat/lon or address and heads out. How do you know what happens right now, beyond the experience of one individual driver? And why would OSM be better than a customized system built specifically for the intended use? The point is that even if everyone has all the roads in their jurisdiction memorized (and nowadays with consolidation and huge coverage areas that's harder to do) and has previously spent the $$$ on E-911 systems and map upgrades, not everyone is on the same page and if there's something we can do to help, why not do it? I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's something you can do to help, and/or that that something has anything to do with using OSM data for routing. At least talk to a chief, and/or to someone on the dispatch side of things who has the power to completely rewrite the dispatch procedures. I suspect OSMers probably could provide some help to some jurisdictions, at least on the dispatch side of things. And on the at the scene side of things, there are definitely things that can be done in the non-routing realm. Fire hydrant / standpipe locations, pressure information, number (and in some jurisdictions, type) of hookups. Of course, much of the information that needs to be integrated into such a system is probably too private for OSM: floor plans, contact information, hazardous materials information, special needs of particular individuals. And even the parts that *are* suitable for OSM would only be useful if they were maintained by someone local who kept them up to date. This is true of routing information as well, but I think OSM is a long long way from even being a contender for use for real-time emergency routing. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Using OSM for emergency routing?
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote: The point is that even if everyone has all the roads in their jurisdiction memorized (and nowadays with consolidation and huge coverage areas that's harder to do) and has previously spent the $$$ on E-911 systems and map upgrades, not everyone is on the same page and if there's something we can do to help, why not do it? I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's something you can do to help, and/or that that something has anything to do with using OSM data for routing. Thinking about this a little more, probably the number one thing OSM mappers could do to help is to release their data into the public domain. This way, companies could integrate it into the proprietary systems they're already providing to the emergency services, without having to drastically change their business model. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] shields and overlaps
I'm doing a little work on shield rendering for Interstate and US Route shields, etc. Who has a favourite highway overlap? I'd like a few examples of each of the following. - two Interstates overlapping on a way - three Interstates overlapping on a way - combination of Interstates and US Routes totalling two or three shields If you could reply with a link to the way, like http://openstreetmap.org/browse/way/ that would be awesome. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
Oh why not. How about an overlap of one I, one US and one state-something as well? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I'm doing a little work on shield rendering for Interstate and US Route shields, etc. Who has a favourite highway overlap? I'd like a few examples of each of the following. - two Interstates overlapping on a way - three Interstates overlapping on a way - combination of Interstates and US Routes totalling two or three shields If you could reply with a link to the way, like http://openstreetmap.org/browse/way/ that would be awesome. Last I heard the interstate in this area is the longest section of interstate that has 3 interstate identifiers in the country: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/6888315 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I'm doing a little work on shield rendering for Interstate and US Route shields, etc. Who has a favourite highway overlap? I'd like a few examples of each of the following. - two Interstates overlapping on a way - three Interstates overlapping on a way - combination of Interstates and US Routes totalling two or three shields If you could reply with a link to the way, like http://openstreetmap.org/browse/way/ that would be awesome. Here's a torture test for you: four US routes and an Interstate. Even though I-55 is the only one of the 5 routes there signed in the field thanks to AHTD's aversion to such things... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/49565446 West Memphis has all sorts of interesting combinations you can test. Reminds me, we need to add some notation for unsigned routes in relations (the only approaches I can think of are either to tag it as roles on each member, with things like unsigned;west sometimes - which is icky but would work - or having separate relations for unsigned routes). This is one area OSM could really be an improvement over Google Maps etc that direct people to follow FL 600 and the like. Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Unsigned routes (Re: shields and overlaps)
On 6/4/2011 7:06 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Reminds me, we need to add some notation for unsigned routes in relations (the only approaches I can think of are either to tag it as roles on each member, with things like unsigned;west sometimes - which is icky but would work - or having separate relations for unsigned routes). This is one area OSM could really be an improvement over Google Maps etc that direct people to follow FL 600 and the like. I've been creating separate relations with unsigned_ref=* and using unsigned_ref on the ways (example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23154). This of course doesn't work so well when a piece in the middle is unsigned (Arkansas and US 63, yuck). It also fails when the state doesn't have a good source for where the unsigned route goes (Florida and SR 35 through Bartow). As for Florida, I never tagged the unsigned routes in the first place. I'd certainly be willing to add them, but as mentioned the routing isn't always clear. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
Here's some examples you could test: 2 Interstates - I-77 I-74: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/16776408 (Note: IMO, I think the refs should be I 77;I 74 instead since the mileage on this section is I-77's.) 2 Interstates + US Highway - I-73, I-74, US-220: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/49905664 1 Interstate + 2 US Highways - I-376, US-22, US-30: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/39423501 1 Future Interstate + 4 US Highways (yes, everything is posted in the field here unlike the AR example in a previous e-mail) - I-26 Future, US-19, US-23, US-25, US-70: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/49481120 I Interstate + 1 US Highway + 1 State Route - I-99, US-220, PA-26 (Note: need to add in the PA part for the PA-26 to the ways in this area still since most of PA hasn't been fixed up to include the state name in the ref tags. I'll do that in a bit along I-99.) http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/36737549 Interesting test - How about showing us a Business Interstate rendering? I-376 Business Loop here in Pittsburgh would be a nice test. Would love to see proper shields posted unlike how Google does it with just normal Interstate shields. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/55506881 - We should mention somehow what type of Business Route they are in the ref and/or the relations. Also, are you going to try to add proper Future Interstate shields? Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might give people a proper reason to tag these posted Future Interstate correctly instead of without the Future tag. I've noticed a lot of I-73/I-74 that is posted as Future in the field tagged as normal Interstates would shouldn't be the case.. -- James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
On 6/4/2011 9:46 PM, James Mast wrote: Also, are you going to try to add proper Future Interstate shields? Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might give people a proper reason to tag these posted Future Interstate correctly instead of without the Future tag. I've noticed a lot of I-73/I-74 that is posted as Future in the field tagged as normal Interstates would shouldn't be the case.. Since the only difference is that the word INTERSTATE is replaced by FUTURE, I don't see how we could show the difference. See the photos on http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg7.html - in the first one it's almost impossible to tell that it's future. I'm also not sure that there's any benefit in distinguishing. Note: this is different from the occasional 'future corridor' signs like in http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg14.html - those should be marked with fut_ref=*. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps
Then what how how NC is *now* signing the Future Interstates? http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg10.html http://www.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg4.html#seg5 (search for Photo of only I-73 sign along segment after its opening in December) Those show the Future text in big bold text, but yes, they do have the Interstate text in them. Maybe have the word FUTURE put about the Interstate shield like MapQuest does on their normal maps? http://www.mapquest.com/?version=1.0hk=9-iIKqGNMU You can see the text above 576 and I-376 Business. This might work as a possible compromise and could work with also bannered US/State highways. -- James Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 22:21:41 -0400 From: nerou...@gmail.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] shields and overlaps On 6/4/2011 9:46 PM, James Mast wrote: Also, are you going to try to add proper Future Interstate shields? Currently in Google, they just show a normal Interstate shield. It might give people a proper reason to tag these posted Future Interstate correctly instead of without the Future tag. I've noticed a lot of I-73/I-74 that is posted as Future in the field tagged as normal Interstates would shouldn't be the case.. Since the only difference is that the word INTERSTATE is replaced by FUTURE, I don't see how we could show the difference. See the photos on http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i73seg7.html - in the first one it's almost impossible to tell that it's future. I'm also not sure that there's any benefit in distinguishing. Note: this is different from the occasional 'future corridor' signs like in http://web.duke.edu/~rmalme/i74seg14.html - those should be marked with fut_ref=*. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unsigned routes (Re: shields and overlaps)
On 6/5/2011 12:15 AM, nat...@nwacg.net wrote: In Arkansas, routes are not unsigned or (except in very rare cases) cosigned. The route ends where it meets a route of higher priority and begins again as a new segment elsewhere. There are a lot of states that do this internally. But most sign them properly as overlaps, even if they don't have overlaps 'behind the scenes'. Arkansas does have some (partly?) signed overlaps, like US 65-167 on I-30 and I-530 near Little Rock. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unsigned routes (Re: shields and overlaps)
On 6/5/11 12:15 AM, nat...@nwacg.net wrote: In Arkansas, routes are not unsigned or (except in very rare cases) cosigned. The route ends where it meets a route of higher priority and begins again as a new segment elsewhere. Most Arkansas state highways and some US highways fall victim to this splitting at some point or another. What is an open question is how to handle this in OSM. I choose to have an intentional gap in the route's relation, at least for the few I've done so far. this is reasonable, and i do the same thing when i encounter gaps in NY, usually gaps in county routes. however, there are unsigned routes in NY; state maintained routes which have designations but which do not have signage, and some county routes. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unsigned routes (Re: shields and overlaps)
On 6/5/2011 12:22 AM, Richard Welty wrote: however, there are unsigned routes in NY; state maintained routes which have designations but which do not have signage, and some county routes. Three states - Florida, Alabama, and Tennessee - have an unsigned state designation for every segment of U.S. Route (and Interstate in Florida). For example, Interstate 4 is also State Road 400, which appears on some maps but is not signed along I-4. But after I-4 ends at I-95 (SR 9), SR 400 continues as a short signed route to the end at US 1 (SR 5). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
