Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

2010-03-07 Thread Andrew Sawyer
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Richard Welty wrote:

  probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be
 found
  in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
  because they're state highways?

 I would say so.  There's the surface tag, too...  surface=gravel,
 surface=unpaved...

 Not to be super technical, but in New Hampshire all public roads are state
highways. The distinction you are likely referencing is the numbered State
routes which are maintained by NH DOT (except some city/town centers) and
known as the New Hampshire Highway System.

A question that I have is whether or not NH Routes should ever be listed as
Primary or Tertiary? I know in Mass its been done using a functional usage
criteria, whereas I have used the US Routes get to be Primary, NH Routes
Secondary and routes that connect town centers that aren't the other two are
tertiary. I know this is the debate that we are having, but it would seem
that either we leave it to regions or states to decide or try a one size
fits all approach based off the British system which doesn't seem to match
up very well (at least terminology wise) with the US and its intricacies.

There seem to be two major groups of roads: limited access and everything
else. Within those groups there are variations that at some level get
tedious in distinguishing between various classifications that depend on
routing/lanes/max speed. In some respects a standard is important, but it
has to describe and differentiate between the roads. I think that a regional
approach, especially in NE, would be best while maintaining some uniformity
across the US and World. I would propose more, but I find it difficult given
the current structure. It would seem that there be two major tagging
classifications could dominate the tagging:
1. administrative (coming from the authorities over it - route numbers,
administrative designations of classification, etc.)
2. functional (coming from actual usage criteria, like number of lanes,
width, etc)

The first is going to be easier to tag and edit, whereas the latter is going
to be more intensive with reviewing official GIS data and personal
observations. Just some thoughts. I don't propose to reinvent the wheel,
maybe this can be accomplished with Relations or current tagging and leave
people quibbling over colors to renders?

Some thoughts and my two cents.

Andrew Sawyer
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: Lake Winnepesaki rendering issue

2009-10-12 Thread Andrew Sawyer
Thanks for taking a look.  On the Information Freeway site it still shows a
rendering issue. I notice that the Mapnik layer was getting changes faster.
I tried manually forcing a rerender via the site, but nothing substantial
has changed. Should the islands not have natural:land? Does t...@h not like
that tag?

I am glad it doesn't appear that I made an editing error.  I posted my
original e-mail to the t...@h list. Hopefully someone over there can lend their
expertise. Is there a lot of data behinds the scene that affects the
rendering, but the typical user cant see?

Andrew S. Sawyer
http://www.facebook.com/assawyer



On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 18:30, Lennard l...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 David ``Smith'' wrote:

  Oops, I should have looked at your links *before* I sent my response.
  As it turns out, your lake looks just fine in Mapnik, but Osmarender
  is having some problems.  I'm pretty sure it's a rendering issue that
  the Osmarender or t...@h guys need to fix, because I've seen issues like
  this in Illinois too.

 It wasn't quite right in mapnik too, especially in the lower zooms that
 hadn't been rerendered yet. The islands had drowned, and the roads were
 now in the lake. I looked at it in JOSM, couldn't see fault, and had the
 lower zooms rerendered, and that cleared it up.

 My guess was that there was an error with the data, and it got cleared
 up, and osmarender/t...@h still has to rerender?

 BTW: The current osm.org mapnik layer is now running with a new type of
 diffs, which shouldn't drop (parts of) large changesets as the old
 minutely diffs did, and give faster updates to boot!

 --
 Lennard

 ___
 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