Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
I'm just curious, but how are you going to add shields for all of the Turnpikes out there that have their shield posted alongside another route shield (like the PA Turnpike, New York Thruway, Ohio Turnpike as examples)? Will there need to be some tweaks to the relations for those said routes so this can happen? If so, I'd be more than willing to do some tweaking at least with the PA Turnpike's relation (right now I'm splitting it up into WB and EB for the main route) and adding a super relation to also tie in all of the sections that the PA Turnpike controls (PA Turnpike 43, PA Turnpike 66, PA Turnpike 576, NE Extension I-476, + a segment of the extended I-376 that use to be PA Turnpike 60). Also, do you guys think for the PA Turnpike XXX routes, that the network tag for them should be US:PA:Turnpike (also for the mainline PA Turnpike relation and NE Extension)? I know I would need to spilt up PA-66 and PA-43 relations since both have segments that aren't part of the PA Turnpike network. (Yes, there is a free segment of PA-43 posted with normal PA shields, which is between Exit #8 and US-40/US-119. Have pictures of it, but too tired to dig them up and resize to upload right now, so here's a StreetView link instead: http://goo.gl/maps/GeZzo) I was planning on changing them to that network when I split them from the non-Turnpike segments. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-09 01:40 -0400]: So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with tagging these Future Interstates? Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: network=US:I:Future ref=number modifier=Future and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd recommend tagging as above. Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and 840. Are there any others? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
There is one other. I mentioned it in my e-mail from yesterday (07-09-13). That is I-295 in Fayetteville. http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html And to be honest, I thought some people wanted the :Future part dropped out and just put in the modifier area. -James Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:40:58 -0400 From: phi...@pobox.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-09 01:40 -0400]: So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with tagging these Future Interstates? Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: network=US:I:Future ref=number modifier=Future and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd recommend tagging as above. Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and 840. Are there any others? ___ 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] Future Interstate Relations
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-10 08:59 -0400]: There is one other. I mentioned it in my e-mail from yesterday (07-09-13). That is I-295 in Fayetteville. Okay, I've got that one in my rendering now, too. And to be honest, I thought some people wanted the :Future part dropped out and just put in the modifier area. This time around, one person suggested that. (In previous discussions there was a second opinion along those lines, but he's not on this list at the moment.) In the past, everyone else who's voiced an opinion has gone for the US:I:Future style of tagging, and no one else even chimed in this time. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
I could fix the PA Turnpike relation with the US:PA:Turnpike network tag in a moment. Would that work instead of just fixing the name tags for both directions? I only split it up because it was getting close to 1,000 ways and thought it would be easier to edit in the future having two smaller relations, one for each direction. -James Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:14:40 -0400 From: phi...@pobox.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-10 03:18 -0400]: I'm just curious, but how are you going to add shields for all of the Turnpikes out there that have their shield posted alongside another route shield (like the PA Turnpike, New York Thruway, Ohio Turnpike as examples)? Yes. http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=16lat=41.23953lon=-80.99077 I've got shields for the PA Turnpike, but a recent edit of yours broke the rendering. :) See below. For all that I've got most (hopefully all) of New York's parkways prepped, I seem to have missed the New York Thruway; I'll have to add that. Will there need to be some tweaks to the relations for those said routes so this can happen? The way I'm handling this at the moment (documented at http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html ) is that the relation needs: * an appropriate network tag, usually one matching the state's routes (US:PA, US:NJ, etc.); * the name tag set to the name of the route; and * *no* ref tag The recent edit to the PA Turnpike added (eastbound) and (westbound) to the name tag for the relations, which broke the rendering because it just expects name=Pennsylvania Turnpike. I'm not sure I want to change this aspect of the rendering, because Pennsylvania Turnpike is the name of the route and Pennsylvania Turnpike (eastbound) is merely the designation for a partiular relation. Also, I note that someone has added ref=NJTP to the New Jersey Turnpike, which breaks my rendering there. I do support ref=initials tags for some New York parkways, because that's basically how the signs look, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is for the New Jersey Turnpike. Anyone want to offer an opinion here? Also, do you guys think for the PA Turnpike XXX routes, that the network tag for them should be US:PA:Turnpike (also for the mainline PA Turnpike relation and NE Extension)? I've already got shields available for PA routes 43, 66, and 576 under the US:PA:Turnpike network. (Also, the Pennsylvania Turnpike will get a shield with either US:PA or US:PA:Turnpike, since I thought a reasonable argument could be made for either case.) ___ 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] Update on highway shield rendering
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-10 09:22 -0400]: I could fix the PA Turnpike relation with the US:PA:Turnpike network tag in a moment. Would that work instead of just fixing the name tags for both directions? That wouldn't affect my rendering as it currently stands. The rendering, right now, will only make a shields for a relation with the exact name Pennsylvania Turnpike. I only split it up because it was getting close to 1,000 ways and thought it would be easier to edit in the future having two smaller relations, one for each direction. -James Yeah, the same reason we split national routes on a state-by-state basis. The practice of putting stuff like I-95 (VA) in the name tag on those doesn't interfere with my rendering because those relations have ref tags, even though that's not really the name of the route. What we really need is a tag like name:relation that the editing tools can use for labeling things in their UIs when we want something more descriptive than precise use of the name tag can give us. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Well, what IS the song, then? said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered. I was coming to that, the Knight said. The song really IS 'A-SITTING ON A GATE': and the tune's my own invention. -- _Through the Looking-Glass_, Lewis Carroll ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:40:22 -0400 From: phi...@pobox.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-10 09:22 -0400]: I could fix the PA Turnpike relation with the US:PA:Turnpike network tag in a moment. Would that work instead of just fixing the name tags for both directions? That wouldn't affect my rendering as it currently stands. The rendering, right now, will only make a shields for a relation with the exact name Pennsylvania Turnpike. Is it possible that it could take the name from the Super relation for both directions? I didn't put the word (super) In it.http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/270032 Also, how will you deal with the PA Turnpike's NE Extension which also should have the shields on it? Before today, it didn't have a relation (just the base I-476 one) till I added it. However, I did split it up with a relation for each direction, and then a super tying it up together.http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/3075654 Or maybe you could somehow tweak your script to ignore anything in () in the name tag? That might be the best solution here, IMO. -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
On 7/10/13 9:14 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: Also, I note that someone has added ref=NJTP to the New Jersey Turnpike, which breaks my rendering there. I do support ref=initials tags for some New York parkways, because that's basically how the signs look, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is for the New Jersey Turnpike. Anyone want to offer an opinion here? an NJTP shield is probably appropriate. the turnpike is _not_ precisely I-95. Delaware to exit 6 is unsigned NJ route 700 (all signage is NJTP), Exit 6 to the GWB is signed both I-95 and NJTP. I-95 is not yet complete in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area so all the traffic is on the NJTP. a typical shield is on the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike in general, drivers on the NJTP think NJTP, not I-95 when they think about it at all. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
Well, I've found a bug in the rendering engine. What's up with these US 1-9 shields? http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=16lat=35.52081lon=-79.18442layers=B Is it because there are two different US 1 relations tagged on those ways? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/11177 No idea why there are two there, maybe somebody thought that they needed to keep all of US-1 together in NC, even though some segments are Bypass/Business with no vanilla US-1? Then again, I know US-21 has this happen in Jonesville with the Business route going into town and the main route being a Bypass along I-77 and this rendering bug isn't happening there. http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=14lat=36.24215lon=-80.83527layers=B http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/172380289 -James ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:44 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote: Well, I've found a bug in the rendering engine. What's up with these US 1-9 shields? http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=16lat=35.52081lon=-79.18442layers=B This is a real thing. Welcome to the insane variety of how we do highways in this country :) http://www.alpsroads.net/roads/nj/us_1-9/n46.jpg Phil actually mentioned this in his sotm-us talk which everyone in this discussion might find interesting: http://vimeopro.com/openstreetmapus/state-of-the-map-us-2013/video/68097487 Toby ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: network=US:I:Future ref=number modifier=Future and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd recommend tagging as above. Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and 840. Are there any others? I don't think we hit a consensus, did we? Seems like we were talking about whether having a modifier tag or not, and if not, including the banner in the network. I don't recall anybody proposing doing both (which seems redundant on multiple levels). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:18 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote: Also, do you guys think for the PA Turnpike XXX routes, that the network tag for them should be US:PA:Turnpike (also for the mainline PA Turnpike relation and NE Extension)? That's how I've been handling the Oklahoma situation: US:OK:Turnpike. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
Let me take this opportunity to sollicit another round of feedback on http://maproulette.org/relationpages/ This is still updated every 4 hours. It needs a pretty index page, better filter options. I prefer it if you just file an issue at https://github.com/mvexel/relationpages/issues Martijn On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:18 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote: Also, do you guys think for the PA Turnpike XXX routes, that the network tag for them should be US:PA:Turnpike (also for the mainline PA Turnpike relation and NE Extension)? That's how I've been handling the Oklahoma situation: US:OK:Turnpike. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
* Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net [2013-07-10 09:58 -0400]: an NJTP shield is probably appropriate. the turnpike is _not_ precisely I-95. I think I was unclear in my question. I have a New Jersey Turnpike shield that I want to use. My question is: should the route relation for the New Jersey Turnpike be tagged ref=NJTP or should it have no ref tag at all? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2013-07-10 10:16 -0500]: I don't think we hit a consensus, did we? Seems like we were talking about whether having a modifier tag or not, and if not, including the banner in the network. As I documented at http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Highway-Shield-Rendering-tt5612357.html#a5640994 , I think there's definitely a consensus around putting the banner in the network. I don't recall anybody proposing doing both (which seems redundant on multiple levels). I don't recall a specific discussion about whether to use the modifier tag with the banner already in the network tag, but the wiki (at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_with_relations ) implies that the modifier tag should duplicate the banner present elsewhere, and I've seen the practice in OSM data (from at least NE2, but I'm reasonably sure I've seen other people tagging in this way, too). Separately from the practice that I've seen, I think that having the modifer separate as well as in the network tag allows data consumers to easily work back to the root network while still preserving the uniqueness constraints for consumers that only process the network and ref tags. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-07-10 10:44 -0400]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/172380289 There are some interesting things going on here. Is this road really part of both US 21 and US 21 Bypass? That seems weird to me, but if someone says that's how the road's signed I'll believe it (see: US 1-9 signage...). Also, the map really ought to show bypass shields for the roads that are part of US 21 Bypass.[0] My rendering is not doing so because US 21 Bypass has network=US:US (not network=US:US:Bypass), so it's treated as mainline US 21. [0] Like US 341 Bypass here: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?lat=32.4739lon=-83.7315zoom=14 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2013-07-10 10:28 -0500]: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:18 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote: Also, do you guys think for the PA Turnpike XXX routes, that the network tag for them should be US:PA:Turnpike That's how I've been handling the Oklahoma situation: US:OK:Turnpike. Yep: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?lat=34.55064lon=-96.94071zoom=13 :) I only see two US:OK:Turnpike routes in the database at the moment, and the Cherokee Turnpike suffers from the same issue as the PA Turnpike has currently; my rendering doesn't understand name=Cherokee Turnpike (eastbound). I'm still not sure what the best way to handle that is. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] California geo data open
FYI: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/08/local/la-me-adv-map-ruling-20130709 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Add your location to the summer editathon!
We have already 7 participant locations for the upcoming Summer #editathon on July 20/21. Join us and add your city, too! Ideally until Friday, this way we have you in the upcoming announcement blog post. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/US_Summer_Editathon_2013 -- Alex Barth Secretary OpenStreetMap United States Inc. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Update on highway shield rendering
No ref unless it has a ref. If a renderer wants initials in absence of a ref, it can extrapolate that from the relation's name. On Jul 10, 2013 2:50 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net [2013-07-10 09:58 -0400]: an NJTP shield is probably appropriate. the turnpike is _not_ precisely I-95. I think I was unclear in my question. I have a New Jersey Turnpike shield that I want to use. My question is: should the route relation for the New Jersey Turnpike be tagged ref=NJTP or should it have no ref tag at all? ___ 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] Future Interstate Relations
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: network=US:I:Future ref=number modifier=Future and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd recommend tagging as above. Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and 840. Are there any others? 86 in New York, so signed for various segments of NY 17. https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] California geo data open
Good to see common sense won out. Now we need volunteers (with lawyer friends) to take this up in other states. At least in Virginia there are some municipalities that charge exhorbitant rates for GIS data and require NDA's. On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, Alex Barth wrote: FYI: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/08/local/la-me-adv-map-ruling-20130709 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Edit-a-thon promotion
Great idea, Martijn! Another site that might be useful for contacting people at the neighborhood scale is Nextdoor.com. It's not quite the same concept as Neighborland, but the people who have signed up for the site are similarly concerned with what's going on in their local area. Alan On Jul 9, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: Hey all, I found out about NeighborLand today and am using it as one of the channels to promote the SLC edit-a-thon -- https://neighborland.com/ideas/salt-lake-city-to-improve-openstreetmap Perhaps it's useful for you as well, either for promoting a local edit-a-thon or just to let people know about your local OSM group. At least the people on there are somehow concerned with what's happening around them, so they might be a good target demographic for your next mapping party or mappy hour! Martijn -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ 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
