Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On 2013-02-12 11:18 AM, stevea wrote: The "SR plague" is well-named. Virtually nobody in California colloquially says "State Route", except the California Highway Patrol filling out tickets and Caltrans -- our California DOT -- on highway engineering blueprints. I have (slowly) begun to back out "SR" ref tags to be the widespread acceptable "CA #" ref tags. Another NE2 mess to clean up, mostly. Incidentally, Mountain View has a few signs up that say "SR 85". But yes, I totally agree that certain states, including California, should use the "CA 123" format. This should be a no-brainer; mapping services have done it this way for many years. NE2 has also added "CR " as a prefix to California county roads, which already have their own quite well-defined nomenclature: nine letters (A B C D E G J N R S) designating a regional clusters of counties followed by a number, such as "G2" or "S19." To name any of these "CR G2" or "CR S19" (as NE2 did) is roughly equivalent to urinating on a tree to say "NE2 was here." These must have their "CR " prefix deleted, as well: nobody calls the road "CR S19" (as NE2 has) they say "S19." I too was guilty of adding "CR" to California county roads (just a few, back in '08). But that was before I understood the state's road networks, and my edits there have long since been reverted. Now my penance is holding out against California-style refs in my home state. :-\ -- Minh Nguyen Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM, stevea wrote: > In other words, New York is just as sovereign as is New Zealand, South > Dakota is as much a nation-state as South Korea. I am not an attorney, but > I can read. This makes for 51 independent jurisdictions: the fifty states > and the United States at a federal level. (There might be > "fifty-something" independent jurisdictions if we include DC, Puerto Rico, > American Samoa, US Virgin Islands... but all of those extras are really > separate areas of the single "federal state"). The latter (the federal > USA) is, legally speaking, absolutely distinct from each of the former (the > sovereign fifty states). Let OSM properly reflect that. More like 200+, actually. Indian nations are usually above the state level, below the US level, with a few exceptions that stand independent straddling the US/Canada border. These aren't mapped yet, mostly because suggestions to use administrative boundary levels 3 and 1 as default levels most tribes and the border stragglers have either gone ignored or shot down. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] OSM usage in the last election
I'm working on a presentation and was wondering if anyone had some examples of use of OSM for maps in the recent US election. I know there were some, but I can't find them ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On 2/12/13 4:16 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: what to do with the existing on-route ref tags... to me there are a few possibilities: - Maximize compatibility with existing renderers that use the ref tag for something more sophisticated than simply rendering the text in a lozenge. the existing ref tags need to be preserved at least a little while the authors of the data consumers move to the relation based method - Try to cram as much information in the ref tag as Mapnik* can render, even if that means dropping prefixes (which I guess is where the "bare numbers" that showed up in GA and FL came from). one major complaint i have about bare numbers is that they create an ambiguity, and new mappers make mistakes. for example, ref=US 9; 20 is this US 9 & US 20, or US 9 and some state route 20? a person not yet well versed in OSM conventions might think the former. the question is eliminated entirely if we include the prefix. it is also, of course, eliminated if we move to well formed route relations which is a good long term plan. - Apply local conventions, including prefixes like "SH" and "SR", which may or may not be what is on blade signs or even in common use. in the states which use the SR convention, it seems to be copying the normal usage patterns of locals. here in New York, we talk about "New York 7" to mean state highway 7, so the NY 7 ref tag makes local sense. i did grow up in Florida, and the SR convention was pervasive. i suspect you'll find that when the SR convention is used, it is for that reason. i also don't think we should kill ourselves trying to shift those locals to use of the postal code convention. - Put something human readable in that Mapnik* can render, without sacrificing readability, i hate tagging just for mapnik, or even talking about such a thing. we should tag in a manner that preserves the most information we can for the use of all data consumers. in particular, we have a lot of routing things of great potential value already out there or coming on pretty fast (for example, garmin map generation and the OsmAnd GPS app for Android devices.) whether or not mapnik can render decently with a long ref tag should be a mapnik problem, and not cause a distortion of the underlying data for convenience. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, stevea wrote: [...] > What this means is that ref tags (used at county, state and national levels) > are and should be human readable, and route relations are a more machine > parsable data structure for logically assembling together the various > highway networks -- even where several exist in a single state, like Texas > -- and assembling from existing infrastructure into larger wholes (at a > national level, such as the Interstate System). [...] > So, let's just assign sensible > human meaning to ref tags and sensible machine parsable meaning to route > relation tags. This combination works to create all of the semantics we > need for legal accuracy, local/county/state/federal variations, human > readability, and logical parsability for software which routes or renders > shields for display. I largely agree with you (and Minh) that the ideal is for consumers to move to using the route relations tags, since they are unambiguous and, at this point, reasonably comprehensive. The question then arises: what to do with the existing on-route ref tags... to me there are a few possibilities: - Maximize compatibility with existing renderers that use the ref tag for something more sophisticated than simply rendering the text in a lozenge. - Try to cram as much information in the ref tag as Mapnik* can render, even if that means dropping prefixes (which I guess is where the "bare numbers" that showed up in GA and FL came from). - Apply local conventions, including prefixes like "SH" and "SR", which may or may not be what is on blade signs or even in common use. - Put something human readable in that Mapnik* can render, without sacrificing readability, but omitting less important stuff if we get too long (for example, dropping the redundant state route overlaps in Georgia, using popular typographic conventions rather than standard prefixes, combining route numbers with the same type "I-75/85" rather than "I 75; I 85") - which basically where we were before standardization a few years ago. Personally I think the way forward may be to figure out editor tools that will make route relations easier for people to use (maybe this is as simple as adding some comboboxes to the JOSM tools to help people find the right things to use for the various tags; I haven't used Potlatch in years so no idea what needs to be done there, but probably something similar) and maybe some automated system for detecting the inevitable duplicates that will crop up. Then maybe we can deprecate the way ref tag in the US and find better things to do... Chris -- Chris Lawrence Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
The "SR plague" is well-named. Virtually nobody in California colloquially says "State Route", except the California Highway Patrol filling out tickets and Caltrans -- our California DOT -- on highway engineering blueprints. I have (slowly) begun to back out "SR" ref tags to be the widespread acceptable "CA #" ref tags. Another NE2 mess to clean up, mostly. NE2 has also added "CR " as a prefix to California county roads, which already have their own quite well-defined nomenclature: nine letters (A B C D E G J N R S) designating a regional clusters of counties followed by a number, such as "G2" or "S19." To name any of these "CR G2" or "CR S19" (as NE2 did) is roughly equivalent to urinating on a tree to say "NE2 was here." These must have their "CR " prefix deleted, as well: nobody calls the road "CR S19" (as NE2 has) they say "S19." What this means is that ref tags (used at county, state and national levels) are and should be human readable, and route relations are a more machine parsable data structure for logically assembling together the various highway networks -- even where several exist in a single state, like Texas -- and assembling from existing infrastructure into larger wholes (at a national level, such as the Interstate System). People, let us not forget that legally speaking, in the union of the states in North America colloquially known as the USA, each of the fifty states are sovereign, and so have the exclusive right to determine their own methods of naming highways. The Supreme Court agrees. For example, "The United States and the State of California are two separate sovereignties, each dominant in its own sphere." (Redding v. Los Angeles, 81 CA2d 888, 185 P2d 430 (1947). In other words, New York is just as sovereign as is New Zealand, South Dakota is as much a nation-state as South Korea. I am not an attorney, but I can read. This makes for 51 independent jurisdictions: the fifty states and the United States at a federal level. (There might be "fifty-something" independent jurisdictions if we include DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands... but all of those extras are really separate areas of the single "federal state"). The latter (the federal USA) is, legally speaking, absolutely distinct from each of the former (the sovereign fifty states). Let OSM properly reflect that. So, in OSM, ref tags must be respectful of such realities, as well as be human readable. Concomitantly, route relations which assemble routes (such as "US 101") is where fancy parsing for renderers must happen. I'm OK with using the USPS postal abbreviations for each state, even though this could be considered a Buck Act (4 U.S.C.S. ยงยง 105-110) "federal overlay" that potentially usurps state jurisdictions. We're creating a street map here, not untangling the complexities of state vs. federal jurisdictions in North America or asserting that nomenclature in a mapping database's tagging has any legal meaning. So, let's just assign sensible human meaning to ref tags and sensible machine parsable meaning to route relation tags. This combination works to create all of the semantics we need for legal accuracy, local/county/state/federal variations, human readability, and logical parsability for software which routes or renders shields for display. SteveA California On 2013-02-11 11:30 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags to conform them with the quasi-standard of "two-letter USPS state prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long modifiers)" but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match. Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help. Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the relations, like on the shield renderer at http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood route relations) but baby steps. The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to render. But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the bare number and "SR" plague has set in. The "SR 123" format has been the consensus in Ohio for years. Forget NE2; you'll have to change the local mappers' minds first. We arrived at this choice not only because "US:OH 123" (the wiki's suggestion originally) was too long for Mapnik in most cases, but also because "SR 123" is the predominant abbreviation format on plain-text signage (variable message signs, the occasional blade sign
Re: [Talk-us] OSMers in NYC?
Hi Derick! I'm so glad you reached out! I actually did the same thing recently when I was in Europe-- I met up with mappers in Paris, Amsterdam, and Belgium. I'd suggest you reach out to this OSM NYC meetup group: http://www.meetup.com/osm-nyc/ Many of them are on this list however, so they might touch base with you directly. Cheers, Kathleen On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Derick Rethans wrote: > Hi, > > I am currently visiting NYC and was wondering whether there are any > OSMers around here for a "pub meetup" (what we do in London once every > two weeks)? I can do Wednesday and Thursday evening. > > cheers, > Derick > > ___ > 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
[Talk-us] OSMers in NYC?
Hi, I am currently visiting NYC and was wondering whether there are any OSMers around here for a "pub meetup" (what we do in London once every two weeks)? I can do Wednesday and Thursday evening. cheers, Derick ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
On 2013-02-11 11:30 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote: I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags to conform them with the quasi-standard of "two-letter USPS state prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long modifiers)" but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match. Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help. Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the relations, like on the shield renderer at http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood route relations) but baby steps. The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to render. But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the bare number and "SR" plague has set in. The "SR 123" format has been the consensus in Ohio for years. Forget NE2; you'll have to change the local mappers' minds first. We arrived at this choice not only because "US:OH 123" (the wiki's suggestion originally) was too long for Mapnik in most cases, but also because "SR 123" is the predominant abbreviation format on plain-text signage (variable message signs, the occasional blade sign) and in writing (traffic reports, state documents, ODOT schematics, county engineers' websites, Wikipedia, etc.). This isn't just an Ohio thing. In the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, blade signs at intersections with on-ramps often say "SH 123", even where the highway is commonly known by a name. On 2013-02-11 12:30 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more > likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that > have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a > reference to "Florida xx" or "Florida Highway xx" instead of "State > Road xx," even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the > shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama - > actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be > confused by "Florida xx" than "xx" - "Turn left on 46? 46 what?") - > after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the > ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as "The 101." This a poor analogy, because "The 101" is a colloquial designation -- it belongs in `loc_name`. (Plus, you'd spark an edit war between Northern and Southern Californians over the "The".) Caltrans, on the other hand, tends to use "US 101" or less commonly "Hwy 101" (which would be just as ambiguous as the bare numbers in Florida). I map where Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana meet. Conforming to official and local usage, both Ohio and Indiana use "SR 123", while Kentucky uses "KY 123". The usability problem here is the lack of any route shields at all, not the presence of dual formats. To me, an insistence on nationwide consistency would only serve to delay adoption of route relations by renderers and routers. It leads data consumers to assume that a route network can be determined based solely on a prefix in `ref`. But `ref=CA 130` could be California State Route 130, or it could be Carretera Primaria 130 de Cantabria. [1] The green spade shield would seem quite out of place in Spain, no? We should be treating the `ref` tag as human-readable, not necessarily machine-parsable. That's what route relations are for. Imagine if we still insisted on machine-readable `is_in` tags! [1] http://osm.org/browse/way/4843509 -- Minh Nguyen Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
