Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 02/08/2010 08:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > same for me, Josm has good support for sorting and relations and > checking for gaps. also the relation analyzer will flag them without > errors then. this helped me so much when I tried to fix routing problems > and a road is disconnected because 2 nodes on top of each other or very > small gaps in a road. > One can always create a super relation to collect both directions into > one relation. > You may want to try a tool I am developping (DISCLAIMER: beta version, may fail ... but feedback welcome) to analyse a relation. Handles "1 relation for both directions", roundabouts, child relations and even "1 relation for 4 directions" (see MI 5: http://toolserver.org/~nakor/relation.fcgi?relation=252428 ) Thanks, N. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On 2/8/10 8:01 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation with rolls per state question. The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like only interstates I-24, I-26, I-84 were merged from 2-relations into 1-relation with roles. The rest of the system still has the relation numbers listed in the WIKI. From what I can see, it looks like there's no clear winner between the two systems, although quite a few Interstates are still missing supers. I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that need to be split into dual carriageways. i prefer using one relation per direction, and that's what i've been doing. if the consensus should sway the other way, i won't engage in a lot of public whining about it, though. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
> > I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the > 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that > need to be split into dual carriageways. > same for me, Josm has good support for sorting and relations and checking for gaps. also the relation analyzer will flag them without errors then. this helped me so much when I tried to fix routing problems and a road is disconnected because 2 nodes on top of each other or very small gaps in a road. One can always create a super relation to collect both directions into one relation. > > Chris Hunter > DiverCTH > > > ___ > 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] Fwd: [Warning: Potential Flamewar] Clarifying InterstateRelations
On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > > there is a major disconnect between what people think is "right" and what > the wiki calls for. from > > Agreed. One of the reasons I started this discussion was to make sure that what the wiki calls for is still "right". As far as rendering the shields go, I think we should stick with the established tagging scheme and let whoever writes the parser worry about stripping the network=US: out of US:* . > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations > > we see: > > network=US:I, US:I:BUSINESS, US:I:DOWNTOWN, US:I:FUTURE Required. > Business, downtown and future routes have their own signage > > and > > ref=* Required. ex. 90 > > and many people have been busy building relations to fit this > specification. > > from > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations > > network=US:US > ref=* ex. 20 > > and so forth. > > > Moving back to one of my original questions, I think Nakor was the only one to respond to the 2 relations per state (1 relation each way) vs 1 relation with rolls per state question. The Diff code is a little tangled, but from the WIKI, it looks like only interstates I-24, I-26, I-84 were merged from 2-relations into 1-relation with roles. The rest of the system still has the relation numbers listed in the WIKI. From what I can see, it looks like there's no clear winner between the two systems, although quite a few Interstates are still missing supers. I'm happy to use either method, but one of the reasons why I prefer the 1-relation-per-direction method is that it lets me quickly find areas that need to be split into dual carriageways. Chris Hunter DiverCTH ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
