Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Another update on this: following James's earlier suggestion that we
needed editor support for the n/s/e/w roles with way direction
reversal and (in the case of JOSM) the relation editor, I got some dev
time at Telenav to get the necessary JOSM patches done. I already
submitted the iD patch myself (which should be live by now).

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but
> members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not
> really a model for tags on members.
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p)  
> wrote:
>> Hi All:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question:  Why can’t there be member tag values? There are tag
>> values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Kristen
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>> OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK
>>
>>
>>
>> From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM
>> To: Martijn van Exel
>> Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
>> highways.
>>
>>
>>
>> Martijn,
>>
>> How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for
>> completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
>> into the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the
>> direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the
>> relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the
>> route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a
>> dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk
>> on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in
>> one piece.
>>
>> If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use
>> the ";" or "," instead?  I could see the ";" working just as good as the
>> "|".
>>
>> I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead
>> of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one
>> covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag.  Annoying and easily
>> broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact
>> same route on some segments.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>> From: m...@rtijn.org
>>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700
>>> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
>>> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
>>> highways.
>>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
>>> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
>>> practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
>>>
>>> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
>>> can add a paragraph to the wiki page
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
>>> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
>>> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
>>> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast 
>>> wrote:
>>> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a
>>> > route
>>> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
>>> > segments that are hidden.
>>> >
>>> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on
>>> > I-94
>>> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both
>>> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
>>> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till
>>> > when
>>> > they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
>>> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This
>>> > would
>>> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.
>>> > They
>>> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
>>> > along that way.
>>> >
>>> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag
>>> > in
>>> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an
>>> > example).
>>> >
>>> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
>>> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
>>> >
>>> > -James
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > Talk-us mailing list
>>> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martijn van Exel
>>> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
>>> http://openstreetmap.us/
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://open

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but
members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not
really a model for tags on members.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p)  wrote:
> Hi All:
>
>
>
> I have a question:  Why can’t there be member tag values? There are tag
> values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Kristen
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK
>
>
>
> From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM
> To: Martijn van Exel
> Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
> highways.
>
>
>
> Martijn,
>
> How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for
> completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
> into the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the
> direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the
> relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the
> route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a
> dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk
> on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in
> one piece.
>
> If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use
> the ";" or "," instead?  I could see the ";" working just as good as the
> "|".
>
> I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead
> of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one
> covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag.  Annoying and easily
> broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact
> same route on some segments.
>
> -James
>
>> From: m...@rtijn.org
>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700
>> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
>> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
>> highways.
>>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
>> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
>> practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
>>
>> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
>> can add a paragraph to the wiki page
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
>> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
>> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
>> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
>>
>> Best
>> Martijn
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast 
>> wrote:
>> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a
>> > route
>> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
>> > segments that are hidden.
>> >
>> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on
>> > I-94
>> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both
>> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
>> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till
>> > when
>> > they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
>> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This
>> > would
>> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.
>> > They
>> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
>> > along that way.
>> >
>> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag
>> > in
>> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an
>> > example).
>> >
>> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
>> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
>> >
>> > -James
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Talk-us mailing list
>> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martijn van Exel
>> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
>> http://openstreetmap.us/
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Fwd: Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Forgot to include talk-us in my response to James.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Martijn van Exel 
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US &
State highways.
To: James Mast 


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast  wrote:
> Martijn,
>
> How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for
> completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
> into the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the
> direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the
> relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the
> route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a
> dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk
> on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in
> one piece.

My idea was to just use

role=north/east/south/west

for the regularly signposted sections and

role=north/east/south/west
role:signed=no

for the hidden sections.

It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in
terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in
check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance.

>
> If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use
> the ";" or "," instead?  I could see the ";" working just as good as the
> "|".

I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more
specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and
access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make
the most sense.

>
> I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead
> of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one
> covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag.  Annoying and easily
> broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact
> same route on some segments.

I agree 100%.
--
Martijn van Exel
http://openstreetmap.us/


-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Marion and Lane County, Oregon county roads

[Dion Dock]

> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:07:29 -0500
> From: Richard Welty 
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Marion and Lane County, Oregon county roads
> Message-ID: <529c7801.2080...@averillpark.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> On 12/2/13 3:50 AM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
>> On 23:48 2013-12-01, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>> 
>>>  As far as I'm aware, based on over 25 years of living and traveling in
>>> Oregon ending in roughly 2010, no Oregon county prominently marks county
>>> reference numbers, which would make the vast majority, if not all, of
>>> the county route numbers in Oregon on ways invalid under the current
>>> tagging scheme (even if technically correct).
>>> 
> first, verify whether these two counties follow the practice
> of unsigned county routes. if they do, then convert to unsigned_ref
> (in NY most counties sign their routes, but several do not. it is
> within the realm of possibility that in OR, most counties do not,
> but some do.)
>> Is it possible that these route relations were converted from
>> `name_1=County Route 123` tags in TIGER ways? TIGER data in Ohio is
>> littered with such tags, and I've been converting them into relations
>> in counties that are known to signpost county routes.
>> 
> that's certainly one reason. another potential reason is that
> some mapper became familiar with the county highway
> department inventory numbering system and added those.
> i'm moving a bunch of those to unsigned_ref in Westchester
> County NY (unsigned CRs) right now.
> 
> richard

I think the interns at TriMet added the ref= tag to the county roads.  Paul's 
right, Yamhill, Multnomah, Marion, Clackamas and Washington counties don't put 
sign county reference numbers; I figured it was a side effect of what renderer 
chooses to draw.  I had no idea there was an unsigned_ref= tag.  (Maybe someday 
we'll get a county-specific renderer instead of handling that at the tagging 
level.)

That said, I'm not planning on volunteering to switch the tags from ref= to 
unsigned_ref=.  Maybe someday.

-Dion
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Kam, Kristen -(p)]

Hi All:

I have a question:  Why can't there be member tag values? There are tag values 
for ways, so why not members? Just a thought.

Best,

Kristen

---

OSM Profile --> http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK

From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Martijn van Exel
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State 
highways.

Martijn,

How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for 
completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info into 
the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the 
direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the 
relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the 
route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a dual-carriageway 
(like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk on I-279/I-376 here 
in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in one piece.

If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use the 
";" or "," instead?  I could see the ";" working just as good as the "|".

I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead of 
having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one covering 
the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag.  Annoying and easily broken by 
new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact same route 
on some segments.

-James

> From: m...@rtijn.org
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State 
> highways.
>
> Hi James,
>
> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
> practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
>
> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
> can add a paragraph to the wiki page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
>
> Best
> Martijn
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast 
> mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route
> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
> > segments that are hidden.
> >
> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94
> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both
> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when
> > they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This would
> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields. They
> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
> > along that way.
> >
> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag in
> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).
> >
> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
> >
> > -James
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[James Mast]

Martijn,

How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for 
completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info into 
the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the 
direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the 
relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the 
route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a dual-carriageway 
(like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk on I-279/I-376 here 
in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in one piece.

If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use the 
";" or "," instead?  I could see the ";" working just as good as the "|".

I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead of 
having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one covering 
the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag.  Annoying and easily broken by 
new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact same route 
on some segments.

-James


> From: m...@rtijn.org
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700
> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
> highways.
> 
> Hi James,
> 
> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
> practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
> 
> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
> can add a paragraph to the wiki page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
> 
> Best
> Martijn
> 
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast  wrote:
> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route
> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
> > segments that are hidden.
> >
> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94
> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both
> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when
> > they leave the Interstates.  I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would
> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.  They
> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
> > along that way.
> >
> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag in
> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).
> >
> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
> >
> > -James
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Fwd: [OSM-talk] SotM-EU 2014 in Karlsruhe, Germany

[Richard Weait]

Dear All,

Make your plans to attend SotM-EU, in Karlsruhe, Germany, in June 2014.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Frederik Ramm 
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:33 AM
Subject: [OSM-talk] SotM-EU 2014 in Karlsruhe, Germany
To: Talk Openstreetmap ,
"d...@openstreetmap.org" 


Hi,

   today I have the pleasure to announce that we'll be holding SotM-EU
2014 in Karlsruhe, on 13-15 June. We've set up the web page at
www.sotm-eu.org and we'll be posting news there and on @sotmeu on Twitter.

We'll be trying to emulate the success of the 2011 Vienna conference,
bringing together everyone who does anything interesting in & with
OpenStreetMap in Europe.

The call for papers will be out soon, with registration to open early
2014. We already have a good international programme committee preparing
that but if you'd like to join the programme committee or otherwise help
organising the conference (or aspects of it), don't be shy and write to
i...@sotm-eu.org. Same if you have any ideas that you'd like the
organisers to consider.

We'll be distributing this announcement to the dev and talk lists
as well as to talk-fr and talk-de. If you are on one of the other
regional European lists, we would be grateful if you could forward
the announcement.

I'm looking forward to seeing you in Karlsruhe next year!

Bye
Frederik

PS: "we" = "the local Karlsruhe team & everyone involved"

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
talk mailing list
t...@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2013/12/5 Martijn van Exel 

> I think the unsigned_ref practice is so common here that we should
> just keep that practice. Perhaps also a good one to document on the
> wiki.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
> may not be the best place for it unless we want to make this page
> cover the broader scope of highway designation and signage in the U.S.
> (which I think would be great! but also would require a bit of
> dedication and time..)
>


+1, maybe it could be a country-specific section or be linked from here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:route%3Droad

and probably be added also here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ref

pages like "bla bla in the united states" should be reduced to a minimum to
reduce inconsistent tagging between countries (they tend to evolve, like
also the "main system" evolves, and sooner or later they get "out of sync").

cheers,
Martin
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Richard Welty]

On 12/5/13 12:17 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> For what it's worth, at Telenav we have started relying solely on the
> relation refs when it comes to route numbers. The way refs just seem
> so cumbersome to maintain, and make for a lot of redundant
> information. This is the stuff that relations were designed for!
>
and i think a lot of us are glad that there are finally consumers for
the route relations, it justifies all the work of building them out.

richard




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

I just created a stub for the signed / unsigned paragraph on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
- however, the {{Tag}} template does not support the inclusion of a |
as far as I can see.. Please feel free to expand / edit.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
> practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
>
> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
> can add a paragraph to the wiki page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
>
> Best
> Martijn
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast  wrote:
>> We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route
>> so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
>> segments that are hidden.
>>
>> Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94
>> and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both
>> states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
>> Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when
>> they leave the Interstates.  I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
>> roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would
>> also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.  They
>> would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
>> along that way.
>>
>> As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag in
>> the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).
>>
>> Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
>> relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
>>
>> -James
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Richard - true. It's sort of a chicken vs egg situation. As long as
there is no clear use case for one or the other, both practices will
remain in use. That's why I was so excited to see work continue on the
shield rendering which uses the refs on the relations. As I mentioned,
at Telenav we also pretty much solely rely on the relation refs for
the route numbers (and the relation member roles for the cardinal
direction, if we can come to a consensus about that.) These things may
help us converge on one way of doing things.

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> On 11/30/13 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast 
> wrote:
>>
>> Peter, it would just be for the relations.  It would stay the current
>> status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags
>> (see I-394 example below).
>
>
> I can't wait until we can finally kill this dinosaur.  Refs, as they're
> presently tagged on ways, almost always apply to the route instead of the
> way.  And not to mention they're just a pain in the butt to maintain
> properly where multiplexes exist, something that works cleanly in relations.
>
> we're kind of stuck with ref on the ways until the data
> and data consumers come up to speed. there are a lot
> of route relations still to be built in the US.
>
> richard
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM, James Mast  wrote:
> Peter, it would just be for the relations.  It would stay the current
> status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags
> (see I-394 example below).
>
> In your example with I-394 and US-12, if you look at the way's tags [1], you
> can see that US 12 is still mentioned, but under the tag of "unsigned_ref".
> That's how we have to so it as too many other data users wouldn't understand
> anything "special" in the normal "ref" tag on ways saying something is
> unsigned.  That's why the "east|unsigned" stuff would only work in the
> relations.

For what it's worth, at Telenav we have started relying solely on the
relation refs when it comes to route numbers. The way refs just seem
so cumbersome to maintain, and make for a lot of redundant
information. This is the stuff that relations were designed for!

>
> Here's an example of what I did for US-19 Truck here in Pittsburgh which has
> it's multiplex with I-279 & I-376 hidden (except for the small segment South
> of the Fort Pitt Tunnels because of how the ramps are). First, here's the
> relation for the "signed" poartion of the route [2], and here's the relation
> for the entire route [3].  As you can see, on the entire route relation, I
> have the "unsigned_ref" tag for the route number, while in the "signed"
> relation, it has the normal "ref" tag with the route number.  I had to do it
> this way so that all the data users who use the relations for adding shields
> didn't erroneously add the Truck US-19 shields to I-279/I-376.  Sure, you
> could say this is "tagging for the render", but it also is mapping the
> ground truth since there are no US-19 Truck shields along those two
> Interstates. This sign [4] on Southbound I-279 is the only mention of US-19
> Truck along the Interstates till it leaves I-376 just after the Fort Pitt
> Tunnels. (NOTE: for those who don't know, US-19 Truck used to be mutliplexed
> with just I-279 till I-279 was shortened to the Point in Downtown Pittsburgh
> and I-376 was extended from that point over the Parkway West segment of
> I-279 in 2009.)  (Also another little history lesson here, but Pittsburgh's
> US-19 Truck is the only "officially" approved Truck route with the AASHTO
> and shows up in the logs.)
>
> So, if we all agree on how to handle short segments of unsigned highways in
> relations, I could then re-combine the route into just one relation and tag
> the unsigned ways as "role=north|unsigned" and "role=south|unsigned" along
> the I-279/I-376 multiplexes.
>
> HOWEVER, on routes that are completely unsigned (like hidden I-124 in TN
> [5]), we would just keep use the "unsigned_ref" tag in the relations as we
> are currently doing since it doesn't have a signed segment.  But I wouldn't
> be totally opposed to doing it like the hidden segment of US-19 Truck
> mentioned above inside of the relation.

I think covering this in the role members would make most sense,
because that seems to be where we're headed. My only concern is the
use of the pipe character, which seems to defy general tagging
practices which seem to dictate something like role:signed=yes/no (see
my other email), but I could very well be wrong about that.

> I hope this fully explains what I'm suggesting to do Peter and everybody
> else. ;)

It's crystal clear to me!

-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

I think the unsigned_ref practice is so common here that we should
just keep that practice. Perhaps also a good one to document on the
wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
may not be the best place for it unless we want to make this page
cover the broader scope of highway designation and signage in the U.S.
(which I think would be great! but also would require a bit of
dedication and time..)

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> On 11/30/13 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> 2013/11/30 Peter Davies 
>>
>> So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12.  For my applications I'd
>> prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to track the overlaps (which we
>> and our 10 state DOT customers call double banding).  But if you also want
>> to suppress shields from maps in such areas, could we enter the way ref as I
>> 394;US 12|unsigned  ?
>
>
>
> Usually you would have (at least) 2 relations, one for each ref. The way ref
> (if set at all) will often have multiple values, semicolon separated. Not
> sure if you have a different agreement in the US, but it doesn't matter if
> the ref is signed or not, as long as you can find it in some kind of
> publicly available documentation (with compatible licensing).
>
> in the US, we've been trying to use unsigned_ref= for situations where the
> road
> has a designation but no signage. County routes in Westchester and Onondaga
> Counties
> in NY are examples of this. additionally, many of the highways in the NYS
> parkway
> system have public designations like "Taconic State Parkway" but they also
> have
> unsigned reference numbers in the state inventory, so ref=TSP combined with
> unsigned_ref= is the way we've been going.
>
> richard
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi James,

I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
practice to use role:signed = yes/no?

I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
can add a paragraph to the wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg

Best
Martijn

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast  wrote:
> We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route
> so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
> segments that are hidden.
>
> Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94
> and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both
> states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
> Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when
> they leave the Interstates.  I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
> roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would
> also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.  They
> would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
> along that way.
>
> As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag in
> the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).
>
> Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
> relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
>
> -James
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Bing imagery update

[James Umbanhowar]

According to http://www.ncgicc.com/Default.aspx?tabid=135 and links
therein,  they are doing 1/4 of the state per year on a rolling basis.
This year they photographed the eastern Piedmont and are currently
getting it ready for release, probably in early 2014.  In 2014 they are
photographing northern Piedmont and mountains, so I presume 2015 will be
southern piedmont and mountains, including Mecklenburg County.

I have the following wms link working to serve all the latest
orthoimagery.

wms:http://services.nconemap.com/arcgis/services/Imagery/Orthoimagery_Latest/ImageServer/WMSServer?FORMAT=image/tiff&VERSION=1.1.1&SERVICE=WMS&REQUEST=GetMap&LAYERS=Orthoimagery_Latest&STYLES=&SRS={proj}&WIDTH={width}&HEIGHT={height}&BBOX={bbox}

James

On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 21:59 -0500, Mike N wrote:
> On 12/4/2013 9:07 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) wrote:
> > James,
> >
> > I located NAIP imagery for the state of North Carolina.
> 
> That prompted my recall of an open NC state-run offleaf imagery source. 
>It worked in JOSM back in 2010.   I see that they have updated some 
> coastal imagery in 2012; I'm not sure how far this comes.   They're in 
> the process of updating the whole state for 2013, so it might include 
> Charlotte.
> 
>They restructured the server, and I can't even get JOSM to work with 
> the 2010 imagery; it goes into an endless downloading loop and displays 
> nothing.   Are there any WMS / JOSM gurus who can get this working?
> 
> Try adding the
> WMS: 
> http://services.nconemap.com/arcgis/services/Imagery/Orthoimagery_2012/ImageServer/WMSServer
> 
> 
> More info on the web site
> 
> http://www.nconemap.com/OrthoimageryforNorthCarolina.aspx
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us