[Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html) and again in September ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html), the US Interstate system was going to be moved into a new schema where each direction of each interstate would be split at the state border to avoid hitting API 0.6's 1000-member hard-cap on relationships. Last night, user NE2 "cleaned up" the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. Chris Hunter DiverCTH ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Paul Johnson wrote: >On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: >NE2 has been making a number of questionable edits in the northwest >Oregon area recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the >head with a clue-by-four somehow... Actually it's Paul that's been making the questionable edits, replacing ref=I 5 with ref=I5 on ways because refs supposedly can't have spaces. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On 2/7/10 1:58 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: According to the WIKI and some discussions back in April (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-April/000976.html) and again in September (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2009-September/001597.html), the US Interstate system was going to be moved into a new schema where each direction of each interstate would be split at the state border to avoid hitting API 0.6's 1000-member hard-cap on relationships. Last night, user NE2 "cleaned up" the interstate system by merging all of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. i concur with the notion of splitting at state lines. i also think that the longer US routes need to be handled in a similar manner. i don't think NE2 condensed all the relationships; he hit the I-90 East/West and I-81 North/South relations i built in NY, but just altered the names, leaving both relations in place. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Sun, 2010-02-07 at 14:42 -0500, Richard Welty wrote: > i concur with the notion of splitting at state lines. i also think > that the longer US routes need > to be handled in a similar manner. Yeah, that's sane. If for no other reason than the fact that the mile markers reset at state lines. I guess they're also the maintenance boundaries. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > > Last night, user NE2 "cleaned up" the interstate system by merging all of > the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with > direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I was > working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on splitting > each interstate into separate directions at the state line. What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". I use the ref on the relation when building maps for my Garmin to add highway shields to the map. -- Jeff Ollie ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On 2/7/10 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > > What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From > what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the > interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". I > use the ref on the relation when building maps for my Garmin to add > highway shields to the map. > > i didn't catch that. yes, the refs are supposed to be "stripped down" and the name is the place for detail. this changeset is definitely ill considered. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
I don't think NE2 is on any of these mailing lists. Can someone put a temporary ban on their account? They've been editing all day. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 2/7/10 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >> >> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From >> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the >> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". I >> use the ref on the relation when building maps for my Garmin to add >> highway shields to the map. >> >> >> > i didn't catch that. yes, the refs are supposed to be "stripped down" and > the name is the > place for detail. this changeset is definitely ill considered. > > richard > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Oh, and yes I did contact them via both the OSM Messaging system and the WIKI's messaging system. On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Chris Hunter wrote: > I don't think NE2 is on any of these mailing lists. Can someone put a > temporary ban on their account? They've been editing all day. > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> On 2/7/10 9:23 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> >>> >>> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From >>> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the >>> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". I >>> use the ref on the relation when building maps for my Garmin to add >>> highway shields to the map. >>> >>> >>> >> i didn't catch that. yes, the refs are supposed to be "stripped down" and >> the name is the >> place for detail. this changeset is definitely ill considered. >> >> richard >> >> > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Jeffrey Ollie writes: > What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From > what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the > interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". And I don't like this at all. First, this seems to be different than how this is handled in many other places in the world. From what I have seen in Europe there is always the complete designation how it is found on highway shields used in the ref tag. Second, separating out the highway system requires the data consuming application to know how to piece things back together. Otherwise, a shield on a map for example with just a "25" in it is pretty limited in use. Third, I consider a reference containing just the number to be incomplete. IMHO, the ref tag should contain the complete designation of a piece of highway. This also makes it easier to search for this. Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: > Jeffrey Ollie writes: > >> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From >> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the >> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". > > And I don't like this at all. First, this seems to be different than > how this is handled in many other places in the world. From what I > have seen in Europe there is always the complete designation how it is > found on highway shields used in the ref tag. I don't know if you have travelled much in the US and I've never been to Europe, but US road signs are pretty minimal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-80.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_69.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_3.svg The color and shape of the sign is used to distinguish different types of routes. > Second, separating out the highway system requires the data consuming > application to know how to piece things back together. Otherwise, a > shield on a map for example with just a "25" in it is pretty limited in > use. Again, the color and shape of the shield is used to distinguish different routes > Third, I consider a reference containing just the number to be > incomplete. IMHO, the ref tag should contain the complete designation > of a piece of highway. This also makes it easier to search for this. That's why I set the name tag on the relation to something a little more descriptive. Obviously, this scheme works only in the US, which is why the "network" tag is used to distinguish US routes from those in other countries. -- Jeff Ollie ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Jeffrey Ollie writes: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: >> Jeffrey Ollie writes: >> >>> What's more annoying is that he is changing the names/refs. From >>> what I understand the ref is supposed to be only the >>> interstate/highway number (e.g. "90" or "80") and not "I 90 (MN)". >> >> And I don't like this at all. First, this seems to be different than >> how this is handled in many other places in the world. From what I >> have seen in Europe there is always the complete designation how it is >> found on highway shields used in the ref tag. > > I don't know if you have travelled much in the US and I've never been > to Europe, but US road signs are pretty minimal: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-80.svg > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_69.svg > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Iowa_3.svg > > The color and shape of the sign is used to distinguish different types > of routes. On the shields, yes. But everyone calls 'I 75' just that and not 'the highway 75 on a blue shield'. >> Second, separating out the highway system requires the data consuming >> application to know how to piece things back together. Otherwise, a >> shield on a map for example with just a "25" in it is pretty limited in >> use. > > Again, the color and shape of the shield is used to distinguish different > routes So if a renderer puts the correct shield on a highway that is certainly helpful. But, if it does not know about the particular tagging schema I would prefer that it puts 'I 25' on ther instead of just '25'. My point is that the ref tag should contain the complete reference to the object and not require the consideration of another tag. > >> Third, I consider a reference containing just the number to be >> incomplete. IMHO, the ref tag should contain the complete designation >> of a piece of highway. This also makes it easier to search for this. > > That's why I set the name tag on the relation to something a little > more descriptive. IMHO it is wrong to set the name tag if the highway does not really have a name. > > Obviously, this scheme works only in the US, which is why the > "network" tag is used to distinguish US routes from those in other > countries. The network tag is certainly useful to make it easier to distinguish a German 'A 4' from a British 'A 4' for example. Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Dave Hansen wrote: > Yeah, that's sane. If for no other reason than the fact that the mile > markers reset at state lines. I guess they're also the maintenance > boundaries. You'd guess wrong. They're at least as low as county level, at least in my state. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
Yes, I know it's arguably tagging for the renderer, but can someone else update the WIKI to explain how mkgmap, mapnik, and osmarender handle the ref tag? AFAIK NE2 is tagging for the editor in this case. Thanks, Chris Hunter DiverCTH On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > On 2/8/10 12:19 AM, Chris Hunter wrote: > > I don't think NE2 is on any of these mailing lists. Can someone put a > temporary ban on their account? They've been editing all day. > > don't know if you saw this in the interstate relations wiki in the talk > section but NE2 is about to "fix" the ref tags if he doesn't > hear from anyone (on the wiki, of course). > >We also need to figure out how best to tag the relations. Following the > guideline as it is now, every relation for a route will have the same ref > and no name. This means that in JOSM and Potlatch there's no way to > distinguish them at a glance. (Yeah, I know, don't tag for the > renderer editor, but when there's more than one way of doing > something, we should do what makes our job easier.) --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] > 08:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC) > + > + > If nobody replies, I'm going to change it to the following: > + > *name=I 83 (details if not the whole route, such as "I 83 (PA northbound)") > + > *ref=I 83 > + > --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 14:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
posted that earlier already mkgmap does what you put in the style file. default style does not include ref relations. mapnik doesn't support it don't know about osmarender you can update the wiki. everyone can edit. I don't care and will not start a edit war or wiki edit war because this data isn't used yet and there is better things to do. On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: > Yes, I know it's arguably tagging for the renderer, but can someone else > update the WIKI to explain how mkgmap, mapnik, and osmarender handle the ref > tag? > AFAIK NE2 is tagging for the editor in this case. > > Thanks, > Chris Hunter > DiverCTH > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > >> On 2/8/10 12:19 AM, Chris Hunter wrote: >> >> I don't think NE2 is on any of these mailing lists. Can someone put a >> temporary ban on their account? They've been editing all day. >> >> don't know if you saw this in the interstate relations wiki in the talk >> section but NE2 is about to "fix" the ref tags if he doesn't >> hear from anyone (on the wiki, of course). >> >>We also need to figure out how best to tag the relations. Following >> the guideline as it is now, every relation for a route will have the same >> ref and no name. This means that in JOSM and Potlatch there's no way to >> distinguish them at a glance. (Yeah, I know, don't tag for the >> renderer editor, but when there's more than one way of doing >> something, we should do what makes our job easier.) --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] >> 08:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC) >> + >> + >> If nobody replies, I'm going to change it to the following: >> + >> *name=I 83 (details if not the whole route, such as "I 83 (PA >> northbound)") >> + >> *ref=I 83 >> + >> --[[User talk:NE2|NE2]] 14:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC) >> > > > ___ > 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] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: > Last night, user NE2 "cleaned up" the interstate system by merging all > of the states with 2 relations per interstate back into 1 relation with > direction-based roles. I've already requested a roll-back on the area I > was working on, but I wanted to check if we still have a consensus on > splitting each interstate into separate directions at the state line. NE2 has been making a number of questionable edits in the northwest Oregon area recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the head with a clue-by-four somehow... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying Interstate Relations
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:16:44 -0500, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: >>On Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:58:38 -0500, Chris Hunter wrote: NE2 has been >>making a number of questionable edits in the northwest Oregon area >>recently; I wonder if it's possible to smack 'em upside the head with a >>clue-by-four somehow... > Actually it's Paul that's been making the questionable edits, replacing > ref=I 5 with ref=I5 on ways because refs supposedly can't have spaces. As someone else has pointed out, you have been caught torquing refs on a widespread, national level. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
