[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Phil! Gold]

A blog post at 41latitude[0] has sparked a discussion on
t...@openstreetmap.org.  One of the comments there was that about half of
the points made concern inconsistent tagging in the US.  (Most of the rest
concern map rendering, which is more global in scope.)  I'd like to
discuss some of those things here, get a rough consensus, and, if
possible, update the wiki to consistently reflect the consensus.
Specifically, I plan to lay out several points in this email, and once
they've been discussed for a bit, poll the list to see how much consensus
there is on each issue.  Since this email is rather long, I ask that
replies focus on only one of the major points per reply; if you'd like to
comment on several points, please write several replies.

  [0]: http://www.41latitude.com/post/1310985699/openstreetmap-critique

I'll take things roughly by the headings on the 41 latitude piece.


== "Uneven road coverage" ==

He complains that road coverage looks uneven because different regions
have differing percentages of their roads with classifications above
residential.  This is mostly the result of different TIGER surveys
classifying things differently.  The best we can do, I think, is to try to
apply classifications consistently as we clean up the TIGER data.  I'd
also like to designate a discussion about consistency of road
classification in the US as being off topic for this thread, since that's
a very large, somewhat contentious issue that would probably drown out the
other issues I'd like to discuss.


== "Some of OSM’s Roads Look Like State Borders" ==

He points to some areas in Iowa and Ohio where there are roads that
alternate between motorway and trunk classification.  Without going too
deeply into specific criteria for road classification, are the different
sections of those really that distinct from each other?  Should there be a
rule of thumb that if a road seems to alternate between classifications
that it's better to tag the whole thing at the lower classification?  What
would be a good cutoff for that?  (If a road is downgraded as it goes
through a city but there's a high-grade bypass, it makes sense to tag the
two areas separately.  If it goes back and forth every few miles, maybe
it's not worth recording the higher classification.)


== "Hyphens" ==

There's a lot of inconsistency in tagging in road's ref= tags.  The main
wiki pages (Interstate Highways, United States road tagging) specifically
call for using spaces between the network designation and the network
number.  A lot of people still use dashes for Interstates, because thet's
how they're commonly written (and because "I-5" is more obvious than
"I 5", which might be read as "15").

We now have route relations with very good, specific rules that separate
road network and road numbers in easily parseable ways.  Does it make
sense to keep the "always spaces" rule (and possibly use the route
relations to update all the routes to match that rule)?  Should we go with
the way that people usually write the routes (dashes in Interstates,
spaces in US Highways and state roads)?

This seems like a very nitpicky point, but consistency will enhance the
overall impression of OSM's data.


== "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==

This is another very inconsistent area.  The main US wiki page (United
States road tagging) says to use the state's two-letter postal code
(optionally with a US: prefix).  In practice, usage varies wildly,
generally based on how individual states prefer to represent their routes:
in states like Maryland that use their postal code, usage is pretty
uniform; in states like Ohio that use a "SR" prefix, usage is mixed
between local customs and the postal code standard.

A further complication is the presence of county roads.  The wiki doesn't
mention any standard for those.  From what I've seen, they mostly end up
as "CR" or whatever the local nomenclature is.

Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
should we use the prefixes that locals use?  If we use postal codes, what
should we do about county or town roads?


== "No Prefix" ==

Some roads only have their number in the ref= tag.  I think a standard of
"don't do that; always put network information in the ref= tag, too"
should be uncontroversial, especially since the route relations should
have the network and number information separated for any data consumers
that want that.


== "Semi-Colons" ==

He shows a road that has a ref= of "I 88;56".  I think it should be
completely uncontroversial to say that each part of a semicolon-delimited
ref should have the appropriate network information in it.


== "Colons" ==

He shows a road tagged "US:OH 18".  This is really about what to use for
state prefixes, which is discussed above.


== "Parentheses" ==

Hw shows a road tagged "(36)".  This is also about prefixes (or not) for
state roads and should be discussed above.


== "Acronym Markers" ==

I haven't seen this around me, but apparently there are roads th

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Val Kartchner]

On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 12:08 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
> == "Hyphens" ==
> 
> There's a lot of inconsistency in tagging in road's ref= tags.  The main
> wiki pages (Interstate Highways, United States road tagging) specifically
> call for using spaces between the network designation and the network
> number.  A lot of people still use dashes for Interstates, because thet's
> how they're commonly written (and because "I-5" is more obvious than
> "I 5", which might be read as "15").

At least here in the US, the dash is convention so it should be used in
the map.

> == "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==
> 
> This is another very inconsistent area.  The main US wiki page (United
> States road tagging) says to use the state's two-letter postal code
> (optionally with a US: prefix).  In practice, usage varies wildly,
> generally based on how individual states prefer to represent their routes:
> in states like Maryland that use their postal code, usage is pretty
> uniform; in states like Ohio that use a "SR" prefix, usage is mixed
> between local customs and the postal code standard.
> 
> A further complication is the presence of county roads.  The wiki doesn't
> mention any standard for those.  From what I've seen, they mostly end up
> as "CR" or whatever the local nomenclature is.
> 
> Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
> should we use the prefixes that locals use?  If we use postal codes, what
> should we do about county or town roads?

We should find some consistent way to do it such that it is easy for a
renderer to parse.  Then the renderers will need to be changed to use
them.  Once this is done, people will be more likely to enter them
properly since they will show up in a special way.

So, for instance, in Utah the state routes are designated (without
abbreviation) State Route 67 (for instance).  This is abbreviated as
SR-67.  However, a sign with this designation is not used very much.
The much more commonly used signage is "67" is the state highway shield
(a white beehive on a black background).  This is how the renderers
should put it on the state highways.  (Wikipedia does it this way on
each page.)

I haven't seen any county road signs (on physical roads), but I've heard
the renderers will draw the number in a circle.

The standard should be something easy to parse.  Perhaps, for the above
example, it would be "US:UT:SR-67".  This would allow an easy way to
parse which shield to use.  For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
be "CA:BC:12".  The colons would designate a field, and a space or dash
would indicate a subfield.  The renderer could just use all but the last
field to figure out which shield to use ("US:UT" or "CA:BC"), then use
the last subfield of the last field to draw the shield.  This would work
for an instance I've seen in New Hampshire which would be "US:NH:3A".

I'm sure that there are some exceptions, to using the last subfield to
draw the shield.  Let's hear about them.

> == "Semi-Colons" ==

> He shows a road that has a ref= of "I 88;56".  I think it should be
> completely uncontroversial to say that each part of a
> semicolon-delimited ref should have the appropriate network
> information in it.

I agree with your solution.  Again, the renderer needs to draw the
highway shields.  If there is no special treatment by the renderer for
doing things in the proper way, then it is less likely that things will
be tagged correctly.  I'm reminded of the truism, "What gets rewarded
gets repeated."


- Val -


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Dale Puch]

>> == "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==

I wish there was a better (simpler) way to consistently tag the state and
county shields but I do not have one.  I think it needs to be done though.
Compared to the rest of the world, I think the US has an extra layer of 50
varying standards to deal with.

I would add to Val's e-mail that county roads might need the same
US:UT:CR-14 as I believe they are handled differently in some state as
well.  Also to differentiate them from tags from other parts of the world.

-- 
Dale Puch


On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Val Kartchner  wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 12:08 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
> > == "Hyphens" ==
> >
> > There's a lot of inconsistency in tagging in road's ref= tags.  The main
> > wiki pages (Interstate Highways, United States road tagging) specifically
> > call for using spaces between the network designation and the network
> > number.  A lot of people still use dashes for Interstates, because thet's
> > how they're commonly written (and because "I-5" is more obvious than
> > "I 5", which might be read as "15").
>
> At least here in the US, the dash is convention so it should be used in
> the map.
>
> > == "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==
> >
> > This is another very inconsistent area.  The main US wiki page (United
> > States road tagging) says to use the state's two-letter postal code
> > (optionally with a US: prefix).  In practice, usage varies wildly,
> > generally based on how individual states prefer to represent their
> routes:
> > in states like Maryland that use their postal code, usage is pretty
> > uniform; in states like Ohio that use a "SR" prefix, usage is mixed
> > between local customs and the postal code standard.
> >
> > A further complication is the presence of county roads.  The wiki doesn't
> > mention any standard for those.  From what I've seen, they mostly end up
> > as "CR" or whatever the local nomenclature is.
> >
> > Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
> > should we use the prefixes that locals use?  If we use postal codes, what
> > should we do about county or town roads?
>
> We should find some consistent way to do it such that it is easy for a
> renderer to parse.  Then the renderers will need to be changed to use
> them.  Once this is done, people will be more likely to enter them
> properly since they will show up in a special way.
>
> So, for instance, in Utah the state routes are designated (without
> abbreviation) State Route 67 (for instance).  This is abbreviated as
> SR-67.  However, a sign with this designation is not used very much.
> The much more commonly used signage is "67" is the state highway shield
> (a white beehive on a black background).  This is how the renderers
> should put it on the state highways.  (Wikipedia does it this way on
> each page.)
>
> I haven't seen any county road signs (on physical roads), but I've heard
> the renderers will draw the number in a circle.
>
> The standard should be something easy to parse.  Perhaps, for the above
> example, it would be "US:UT:SR-67".  This would allow an easy way to
> parse which shield to use.  For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
> be "CA:BC:12".  The colons would designate a field, and a space or dash
> would indicate a subfield.  The renderer could just use all but the last
> field to figure out which shield to use ("US:UT" or "CA:BC"), then use
> the last subfield of the last field to draw the shield.  This would work
> for an instance I've seen in New Hampshire which would be "US:NH:3A".
>
> I'm sure that there are some exceptions, to using the last subfield to
> draw the shield.  Let's hear about them.
>
> > == "Semi-Colons" ==
>
> > He shows a road that has a ref= of "I 88;56".  I think it should be
> > completely uncontroversial to say that each part of a
> > semicolon-delimited ref should have the appropriate network
> > information in it.
>
> I agree with your solution.  Again, the renderer needs to draw the
> highway shields.  If there is no special treatment by the renderer for
> doing things in the proper way, then it is less likely that things will
> be tagged correctly.  I'm reminded of the truism, "What gets rewarded
> gets repeated."
>
>
> - Val -
>
>
> ___
> 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] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:
> == "Some of OSM’s Roads Look Like State Borders" ==
>
> He points to some areas in Iowa and Ohio where there are roads that
> alternate between motorway and trunk classification.
This is correct. See the states' official hgihway maps:
http://www.iowadotmaps.com/msp/pdf/current/stmapmain.pdf
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/maps/Pages/20072009TransMap.aspx

>  Without going too
> deeply into specific criteria for road classification, are the different
> sections of those really that distinct from each other?  Should there be a
> rule of thumb that if a road seems to alternate between classifications
> that it's better to tag the whole thing at the lower classification?
No, since that would be tagging incorrectly. In some places
(Californai at least) you'll have signs marking the beginning and
ending of the freeway.

> What would be a good cutoff for that?  (If a road is downgraded as it goes
> through a city but there's a high-grade bypass, it makes sense to tag the
> two areas separately.  If it goes back and forth every few miles, maybe
> it's not worth recording the higher classification.)
The one edge case I can think of is a road like US 395 in Washington
(between I-182 and I-90). It's all built to the same standards - four
lanes with very few intersections. Sometimes two interchanges are
adjacent. But there's no place where you can say it changes from
freeway to surface expressway.

> == "Hyphens" ==
> We now have route relations with very good, specific rules that separate
> road network and road numbers in easily parseable ways.  Does it make
> sense to keep the "always spaces" rule (and possibly use the route
> relations to update all the routes to match that rule)?  Should we go with
> the way that people usually write the routes (dashes in Interstates,
> spaces in US Highways and state roads)?

In some places a hyphen is normal in all classes of road. We need to
start rendering shields before the issue goes away.

> == "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==
>
> This is another very inconsistent area.  The main US wiki page (United
> States road tagging) says to use the state's two-letter postal code
> (optionally with a US: prefix).  In practice, usage varies wildly,
> generally based on how individual states prefer to represent their routes:
> in states like Maryland that use their postal code, usage is pretty
> uniform; in states like Ohio that use a "SR" prefix, usage is mixed
> between local customs and the postal code standard.
>
> A further complication is the presence of county roads.  The wiki doesn't
> mention any standard for those.  From what I've seen, they mostly end up
> as "CR" or whatever the local nomenclature is.
>
> Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
> should we use the prefixes that locals use?  If we use postal codes, what
> should we do about county or town roads?

We should use no prefix for state roads to make shield adoption
easier. We place everything in a generic shape unless it has a prefix;
since state roads would be in a generic shape anyway, it's pointless
to add a prefix.

> == "No Prefix" ==
>
> Some roads only have their number in the ref= tag.  I think a standard of
> "don't do that; always put network information in the ref= tag, too"
> should be uncontroversial, especially since the route relations should
> have the network and number information separated for any data consumers
> that want that.

See above. Adding the prefix just to remove it during rendering is
silly. (No, this isn't tagging incorrectly for the renderer, since
there's nothing incorrect about using ref=50 for SR 50.)
>
> == "Semi-Colons" ==
>
> He shows a road that has a ref= of "I 88;56".  I think it should be
> completely uncontroversial to say that each part of a semicolon-delimited
> ref should have the appropriate network information in it.

See above. If IL 56 is ref=56, an overlap of I-88 and IL 56 would be I 88;56.
>
> == "Colons" ==
>
> He shows a road tagged "US:OH 18".  This is really about what to use for
> state prefixes, which is discussed above.

I wonder if any roads in the UK are tagged UK:GB M1. Doubtful.

> == "Parentheses" ==
>
> Hw shows a road tagged "(36)".  This is also about prefixes (or not) for
> state roads and should be discussed above.

This is an older standard for county roads, which I recently
mass-changed in Florida to CR x after agreement on this list. Such
changes should always be done en masse to avoid typos.

> == "Acronym Markers" ==
>
> I haven't seen this around me, but apparently there are roads that use the
> initials of the road's name as a ref=.  Is this in keeping with the other
> uses of ref=, i.e. that the road is a member of a particular network and
> this is the road's designation within that network?  If not, if it's just
> the initials of a major road, my opinion is that it probably shouldn't
> have a ref= tag.

These are signed with special shields. Some do have 

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Phil! Gold]

* Val Kartchner  [2010-10-15 10:47 -0600]:
> > == "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==
> 
> We should find some consistent way to do it such that it is easy for a
> renderer to parse.  Then the renderers will need to be changed to use
> them.  Once this is done, people will be more likely to enter them
> properly since they will show up in a special way.

In my opinion, the best way to tag for parsing is to use the state postal
codes.  The only unambiguous way to tag for county roads would be the
state postal code, a colon, and another code unique within that state,
probably the county abbreviation for county roads.  This would look
absolutely horrible when rendered with the current rules, though, so few
people would do it.

Fortunately, I don't think that the ref= tag needs to be used for parsing,
because I think the route relations are superior is just about every way
for most parsing and processing needs.  Unfortunately, as far as I can
tell, the current rendering chain would need to be modified significantly
in order to use them for rendering via Mapnik.  I see standardizing the
road ref= tags as a stopgap measure to tide the rendering over until it
can use route relations.

> However, a sign with this designation is not used very much.  The much
> more commonly used signage is "67" is the state highway shield (a white
> beehive on a black background).

Shield rendering has its own complications, though if it were implemented
we could basically stop caring about the aesthetics of the ref= tags.  (If
you had to use "US:UT 67" to get a shield, most people would do it that
way.)  I personally think shields should be rendered from the route
relations, but as I mentioned above, that seems a pipe dream at the
moment.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Phil! Gold]

* Nathan Edgars II  [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
> > Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
> > should we use the prefixes that locals use?  If we use postal codes, what
> > should we do about county or town roads?
> 
> We should use no prefix for state roads to make shield adoption
> easier. We place everything in a generic shape unless it has a prefix;
> since state roads would be in a generic shape anyway, it's pointless
> to add a prefix.

I disagree with this.  I would like to be able to do state-specific
shields, and putting a state prefix in is a) not incorrect and b) allows
for easy disambiguation of *which* state network the road belongs to.  I
realize that is also kind of an argument for the "postal abbreviation"
approach, since the "local usage" approach can be ambiguous.

>From the perspective of keeping the current rendering, I think it makes
more sense to put some prefix in.  Since everything currently gets the
same type of shield, differing only in color, having an appropriate prefix
makes network membership a lot more obvious.

If you do want to go without having a prefix for state roads, what do you
propose for county, town, or other more local roads?

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
Bless them which persecute you; bless, and curse not.  Be not overcome of
evil, but overcome evil with good.
   -- Paul the apostle
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:
> Shield rendering has its own complications, though if it were implemented
> we could basically stop caring about the aesthetics of the ref= tags.  (If
> you had to use "US:UT 67" to get a shield, most people would do it that
> way.)  I personally think shields should be rendered from the route
> relations, but as I mentioned above, that seems a pipe dream at the
> moment.

Route relations may be a problem with county roads in some places.
Orange County, Florida, for example, has decided not to sign most
county roads anymore, leaving the existing signs to rot. They don't
seem to keep a list of which ones they do sign; it's probably up to
the individual engineer. The state, however, has its own ideas, and
marks county roads where they intersect state roads. It has an
inventory of county roads, but they don't always match what they sign
or what the county signs. So you'll sometimes have a county road
that's only signed at one end, and the other end of what used to be
signed may be a number of towns and turns away. The county no longer
considers it to be a numbered county road in any meaningful way, and
the state doesn't have jurisdiction to decide where a county road
goes. So the route has an indeterminate end.

I've been tagging these by choosing an arbitrary sensical point to
stop tagging the ref at. For example, here CR 439 is only signed at
the north end (on SR 50):
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5365&lon=-81.5271&zoom=14&layers=M
It used to continue south into Windermere, turn east on Conroy
Windermere Road, and south on Turkey Lake Road to SR 482. But this
hasn't been marked in over a decade, and isn't even all county
maintained anymore.

It seems to me that changing CR 439 to a relation would add a certain
level of validity to the south end.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:
> * Nathan Edgars II  [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
>> > Should we use the postal code everywhere for nationwide consistency or
>> > should we use the prefixes that locals use?  If we use postal codes, what
>> > should we do about county or town roads?
>>
>> We should use no prefix for state roads to make shield adoption
>> easier. We place everything in a generic shape unless it has a prefix;
>> since state roads would be in a generic shape anyway, it's pointless
>> to add a prefix.
>
> I disagree with this.  I would like to be able to do state-specific
> shields, and putting a state prefix in is a) not incorrect and b) allows
> for easy disambiguation of *which* state network the road belongs to.  I
> realize that is also kind of an argument for the "postal abbreviation"
> approach, since the "local usage" approach can be ambiguous.

State highway shields are not always designed for legibility on a map.
For example, to get the number the same size as with a generic rounded
rectangle, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colorado_7.svg takes
up four times as much space.
>
> From the perspective of keeping the current rendering, I think it makes
> more sense to put some prefix in.  Since everything currently gets the
> same type of shield, differing only in color, having an appropriate prefix
> makes network membership a lot more obvious.

Knowing which state you're in does too, given the current convention
in some places of no prefix for a state highway.
>
> If you do want to go without having a prefix for state roads, what do you
> propose for county, town, or other more local roads?

I use CR for county roads (other places might use CH or CTH), and
lesser systems would use their own prefixes. In the US, the state is
the highest level of government that maintains a large connected
highway system, and general practice on maps is to use a generic
shield for state highways. Both of these make the choice of no prefix
for state highways a good one.

I'm not actually opposed to using a state-dependent prefix like SR in
Florida and PA in Pennsylvania. But it seems pointless.


But there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Virginia has two types of
state routes, one (primary) in a triangular shape and the other
(secondary) in a circle. Both are officially SR x or VA x. Right now,
many are incorrectly tagged (VA x for primary and SR x for secondary),
probably in the mistaken belief that SR means secondary route rather
than state route.

Tennessee also has a signed primary/secondary distinction, but a
single route can change from one to the other. So here even a relation
wouldn't help.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Phil! Gold]

* Nathan Edgars II  [2010-10-15 13:32 -0400]:
> > I haven't seen this around me, but apparently there are roads that use the
> > initials of the road's name as a ref=.  Is this in keeping with the other
> > uses of ref=, i.e. that the road is a member of a particular network and
> > this is the road's designation within that network?  If not, if it's just
> > the initials of a major road, my opinion is that it probably shouldn't
> > have a ref= tag.
> 
> These are signed with special shields. Some do have the text in a
> shield (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Meadowbrook_Pkwy_Shield.svg
> would be ref=M) while others have more complicated shields
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Garden_State_Parkway_shield.png
> would be GSP).

Those are interesting examples.  Taking them in order, the Meadowbrook
Parkway is part of the New York State Parkway System, which appears to me
to be a subset of the state highway system, especially since it does have
an (unsigned) highway reference number.  I'm not familiar enough with New
York to make definitive calls on their numbering, but since more than half
the state parkways don't have obvious reference text on their signs (just
the name) and the rest have the full name in addition to one or two
letters, I wouldn't tag ref= on any of them (since the actual reference
number is unsigned).  Instead, I would treat it as a road that needed a
custom shield, if any shield was rendered at all.  I'll note that Google,
Bing, and Mapquest all appear to have punted on this; none of them renders
any shield at all on it.

For the Garden State Parkway, I would consider it also to be a road that
would need a custom shield, if anything, since its actual reference number
is unsigned.

Note that both of those cases do have their names rendered.  I don't think
that anything is lost by not rendering a ref= tag for either of them.

I'll also stress that I don't have a local's perspective on either of
these roads.  I'm basing my statements primarily on information from
Wikipedia and also from the map renderings of Mapquest, Google, and Bing.
I'd be interested to hear what locals think and to know what local paper
maps do for these roads.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at
heart.
   -- Anne Frank, 15th July, 1944
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Richard Welty]

On 10/15/10 2:25 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:

*
Those are interesting examples.  Taking them in order, the Meadowbrook
Parkway is part of the New York State Parkway System, which appears to me
to be a subset of the state highway system, especially since it does have
an (unsigned) highway reference number.  I'm not familiar enough with New
York to make definitive calls on their numbering, but since more than half
the state parkways don't have obvious reference text on their signs (just
the name) and the rest have the full name in addition to one or two
letters, I wouldn't tag ref= on any of them (since the actual reference
number is unsigned).  Instead, I would treat it as a road that needed a
custom shield, if any shield was rendered at all.  I'll note that Google,
Bing, and Mapquest all appear to have punted on this; none of them renders
any shield at all on it.


i agree that NYS reference route numbers should not go in the ref
tag unless they show up in actual signs (there are four cases i know
of where reference route numbers show up in signs, all are considered
errors but NYS DOT does not appear to be making an effort to correct
them by taking the signs down.)

what i do for the NYS parkway system is use letter codes that correspond
in a sensible way to what is on the sign, e.g.

ref=TSP

for the Taconic State Parkway, since the letters TSP are most prominent
on the shields.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Richard Welty]

i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging

if you are interested in participating, add your name. if you are 
interested in being chair so i don't

have to, please mention that.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Richard Welty  wrote:
> i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging
>
> if you are interested in participating, add your name. if you are interested
> in being chair so i don't
> have to, please mention that.

What needs to be 'scheduled'? Can't we just have a discussion on the
mailing list?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Richard Welty 
> wrote:
> > i have created a page for a US Tagging working group here:
> >
> >
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Local_Chapters/United_States/Working_Groups/US_Tagging
> >
> > if you are interested in participating, add your name. if you are
> interested
> > in being chair so i don't
> > have to, please mention that.
>
> What needs to be 'scheduled'?


That is generic text for all of the working group stubs. We don't
necessarily need to schedule a meeting to discuss, but...


> Can't we just have a discussion on the mailing list?
>

...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done. E-mails
are by design non-comittal and standoffish while real time chats can have a
bit more impact.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> ...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
> lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
> conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done. E-mails
> are by design non-comittal and standoffish while real time chats can have a
> bit more impact.

OK, but then you're only forming a consensus of the people who are
there, rather than all interested parties.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > ...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
> > lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
> > conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done. E-mails
> > are by design non-comittal and standoffish while real time chats can have
> a
> > bit more impact.
>
> OK, but then you're only forming a consensus of the people who are
> there, rather than all interested parties.
>

Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.

The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's
not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
(most importantly) implements it.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
> The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
> a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
> the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's
> not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
> (most importantly) implements it.

You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the
proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation
- again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need
either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call,
plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting
will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?").

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Kate Chapman]

There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
phone call.  All that aside though I think key is just to have some
level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
place.

New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know
how to map.  By making that easier and having standards documented in
a clear way they will.

-Kate

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
>> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
>> The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
>> a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
>> the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's
>> not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
>> (most importantly) implements it.
>
> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
> also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the
> proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation
> - again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need
> either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call,
> plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting
> will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?").
>
> ___
> 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] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Kate Chapman  wrote:
> There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
> phone call.  All that aside though I think key is just to have some
> level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
> place.
>
> New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know
> how to map.  By making that easier and having standards documented in
> a clear way they will.

This is how we get stuff like culvert=yes, where the Dutch talked it
over and started tagging without realizing that it's ambiguous: does
it refer to the object on top of or underneath the culvert?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Al Haraka]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Kate Chapman  wrote:
> There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
> phone call.  All that aside though I think key is just to have some
> level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
> place.
>
> New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know
> how to map.  By making that easier and having standards documented in
> a clear way they will.
>
> -Kate

Kate, I understand where you are going with this, but I think the wiki
is pretty clear on how low the barrier to entry can be if there is a
web-based IRC-client.

http://irc.openstreetmap.org/

I personally dislike the idea of disposing of one avenue of
communication because of "barrier to entry."  I would say in this case
it means the people in the channel or on the call care enough to put
in an effort.  Either way, it costs time or money, regardless of the
choice.  I personally prefer IRC only for the reason that it is easy
to document everything that is said and done with minimal effort.
Someone has to take notes on a phone call, and sometimes those notes
can be inadequate or inaccurate.  That is my only reservation.  Of
course, IRC has its own downsides.

Whatever is decided, I welcome the idea of organizing.  I too am very
concerned about knowing how to map, and I see this as a positive
development.  Thanks to everyone for getting motivated about this.

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>>> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
>>> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
>>> The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
>>> a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
>>> the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's
>>> not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
>>> (most importantly) implements it.
>>
>> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
>> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
>> also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the
>> proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation
>> - again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need
>> either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call,
>> plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting
>> will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?").
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Phil! Gold]

* Ian Dees  [2010-10-15 14:55 -0500]:
> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
> mailing list?

I had planned on mentioning this on talk@ and the US forums to try to get
more people contributing.  I haven't done that yet because I've mostly
been busy working, and I don't want to seem to spammy.  If you want to
mention among other places frequented by US mappers, feel free, but I'd
like to get most contributions coming back to this list.

I'm interested in getting as broad a consensus on this issues as possible,
so I'd prefer not to have a single person dominating the discussion.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
This sentence no verb.
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:

> I'm interested in getting as broad a consensus on this issues as possible,
> so I'd prefer not to have a single person dominating the discussion.

You might try talk@ and tagging@ to get some international opinions.
It might not be possible to eliminate a dominant voice but selecting
venues does present the opportunity for multiple shouters.

The successful result will be the one best-connected with an
implementation.  As always, mappers will vote by using the schema that
lets them see the results.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Al Haraka]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:
> * Ian Dees  [2010-10-15 14:55 -0500]:
>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>> mailing list?
>
> I had planned on mentioning this on talk@ and the US forums to try to get
> more people contributing.  I haven't done that yet because I've mostly
> been busy working, and I don't want to seem to spammy.  If you want to
> mention among other places frequented by US mappers, feel free, but I'd
> like to get most contributions coming back to this list.

On a kind of related note, can anyone report how effective the Project
of the Week initiative is?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Project_of_the_week

I can find the wiki page, obviously, but a quick search does not
indicate if anyone in the community has anecdotes or data following
how many users get involved on a project and what is accomplished.  I
ask because it would be cool to know how easy it will be to harness
the real US enthusiasts and see what their dedication is over time.
That way, I guess we could find a base of people in the US to capture
with this project.  If I missed a good page with the data I inquire
about, please accept apologies for my ignorance.

> I'm interested in getting as broad a consensus on this issues as possible,
> so I'd prefer not to have a single person dominating the discussion.

Ditto.

> --
> ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
> PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
> --- --
> This sentence no verb.
>  --- --
>
> ___
> 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] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Dale Puch  wrote:

> >> == "Inconsistent State Prefixes" ==
>
> I wish there was a better (simpler) way to consistently tag the state and
> county shields but I do not have one.  I think it needs to be done though.
> Compared to the rest of the world, I think the US has an extra layer of 50
> varying standards to deal with.
>
> I would add to Val's e-mail that county roads might need the same
> US:UT:CR-14 as I believe they are handled differently in some state as
> well.  Also to differentiate them from tags from other parts of the world.
>
>
Why are we trying to shove all this information into the ref=* tag? What
I've done in the past is make route relations.

If I'm working on US Route 45 I create a relation tagged like so:
  type=route
  route=road
  network=US:US
  ref=45

If I'm working on WI state road 29 I create a relation tagged like so:
  type=route
  route=road
  network=US:WI
  ref=29

and for county road HHH:
  type=route
  route=road
  network=US:WI:CO
  ref=HHH

I think we could discuss what belongs in the "network" tag but I don't think
the "ref" tag should contain anything other than the actual numeric or
alphanumeric reference of the road. No "CR" or "SR" or acronym for the
human-name of the road.

The fact that the renderers don't show the route relations nicely right now
is a separate issue that we probably need to deal with by rendering a
US-specific set of tiles.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Richard Welty]

On 10/15/10 4:46 PM, Al Haraka wrote:

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:


I'm interested in getting as broad a consensus on this issues as possible,
so I'd prefer not to have a single person dominating the discussion.

Ditto.

one of the roles of a good WG chair is to facilitate exactly this.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Mike N.]

If you want to mention among other places frequented by US mappers, feel 
free


 Some people detest the mailing list signup grind, and thus choose the web 
forum at http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=20 . 



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Mike N.]

This is really just a problem with map coverage, not tagging convention,
but I'd like to ask about consensus on name= and ref= tags for
motorway_junctions.  ref= is pretty obviously the exit number, but
although some wiki pages (Interstate Highways, in particular) say or 
imply

that everything on the exit sign should go into the name= tag (including
the junction road but also further destinations like towns and distant
roads).  I think it makes more sense to just have the junctioned road (or
really significant destination road, like when the junctioned road is
almost always just a means to get to another major road) in the name= tag
and use the destination sign relation for the other information.
Thoughts?


I believe exit_to is for the text on the sign, and name is for an
actual name *if one exists*. Often a toll road will have named
interchanges, but this is rare otherwise.


 exit_to has never been used by the JOSM preset, and I cannot find it 
mentioned on the Wiki, so I don't see any reason to start something new.   I 
think the scheme mentioned in the Wiki for Interstate highway tagging makes 
sense to continue.There are so few cases of a proper "named exit" 
separate from the exit_to information that it is not worth keeping them 
separate.   Continuing to match all the destination information mentioned on 
the sign makes sense because it allows an advance nav system to possibly 
construct the exit sign as the sign to watch out for on a heads up display. 
And of course, ref= contains the exit number.






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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> and for county road HHH:
>   type=route
>   route=road
>   network=US:WI:CO
>   ref=HHH

Why "CO"? Doesn't Wisconsin use CTH (county trunk highway)?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > and for county road HHH:
> >   type=route
> >   route=road
> >   network=US:WI:CO
> >   ref=HHH
>
> Why "CO"? Doesn't Wisconsin use CTH (county trunk highway)?
>

I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense but
isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?

Maybe "network"'s value should simply be "us_route", "state_route", or
"county_route" with several is_in=* tags to make it easier to render.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Mike N.  wrote:
>  exit_to has never been used by the JOSM preset, and I cannot find it
> mentioned on the Wiki, so I don't see any reason to start something new.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction has
mentioned it for several months. Browsing through
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit_to I see use in Florida
(me), the UK, and France. There's also some use of
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit:to .

For an example of the interchange name being different from the
destinations, see the Pennsylvania Turnpike's signage:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/images283/i-283_pa_st_11.jpg

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense but
> isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?

No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas
officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county
roads.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense
> but
> > isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?
>
> No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas
> officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county
> roads.
>

I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
> or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
> our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
> network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
> renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.

This only works in relations because of overlaps. And relations are
too easy to break (split a way and upload the new ways only).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
> > ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
> network=us_route/state_route/county_route
> > or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere
> in
> > our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
> > network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
> > renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
>
> This only works in relations because of overlaps. And relations are
> too easy to break (split a way and upload the new ways only).
>

Relations are the only way to do routes correctly, period. Tagging
individual ways for things that overlap does not/will not work.

If clients break relations when a user splits a way then they should have
bugs filed against them and/or be banned :).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> Relations are the only way to do routes correctly, period. Tagging
> individual ways for things that overlap does not/will not work.
> If clients break relations when a user splits a way then they should have
> bugs filed against them and/or be banned :).

OK, ban JOSM then. Good luck.

(Download way 11194738. Select the south end and download referrers.
Then split way 81229351, which is part of relation 380123.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Richard Welty]

On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II > wrote:


On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees mailto:ian.d...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more
sense but
> isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?

No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas
officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county
roads.


I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* 
or ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for 
network=us_route/state_route/county_route or similar). For example the 
"I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in our tags. If it's an 
interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest network=interstate 
but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the renderer can add 
the "I-" if it wants to.



i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
its own, separate tag.

i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
route involves using the actual county name, e.g.

network=US:NY:Albany

rather than a more generic CO, CR, CH or what have you, and i
find i can't really argue against that. using the generic value means
you can't distinguish between CR 1 in Albany County and CR 1 in the
adjacent Rensselaer County based on the network and ref tags.

richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

>  On 10/15/10 6:06 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> > I made that one up (CO for County). Yes, CTH probably makes more sense
>> but
>> > isn't that pretty specific? Do all states use that verbiage?
>>
>>  No, but no prefix is the same in all states (not even I-x; Texas
>> officially uses IH x). I don't know of any that use CO for county
>> roads.
>>
>
> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
> or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
> our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
> network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
> renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
>
>  i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
> its own, separate tag.
>
> i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
> route involves using the actual county name, e.g.
>
> network=US:NY:Albany
>
> rather than a more generic CO, CR, CH or what have you, and i
> find i can't really argue against that. using the generic value means
> you can't distinguish between CR 1 in Albany County and CR 1 in the
> adjacent Rensselaer County based on the network and ref tags.
>
>
That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
> Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
> county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.

NY 17 enters Pennsylvania, yet remains signed as NY 17 and maintained
by New York. (Has this part become I-86 yet? If so, use a time
machine.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
> > Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
> > county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.
>
> NY 17 enters Pennsylvania, yet remains signed as NY 17 and maintained
> by New York. (Has this part become I-86 yet? If so, use a time
> machine.)
>

Hmm, that's true. Those are two different bits of information. Perhaps that
is what the network=* tag is for. I still think we need something to specify
what kind of route it is (similar to the difference between name=* and
highway=*).

For your example, can I suggest:
  type=route
  route=state
  network=US:NY
  is_in:state=PA
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Richard Welty]

On 10/15/10 10:55 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

That's why I briefly mentioned the is_in=* tag earlier. County road 1 in
Albany County would have network=county_road,is_in:county=Albany while
county road 1 in Rensselaer County would be is_in:Rensselaer.

NY 17 enters Pennsylvania, yet remains signed as NY 17 and maintained
by New York. (Has this part become I-86 yet? If so, use a time
machine.)


it's not part of 86 yet. the money's budgeted for that part of the project,
but the upgrades are a work in progress.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Peter Budny]

Ian Dees  writes:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > ...discussions on the mailing list tend to wander all over the place and
> > lead to no conclusions or decisions being made. If we meet in a phone
> > conference call or even in a chat room then we can get more done.
> E-mails
> > are by design non-comittal and standoffish while real time chats can
> have a
> > bit more impact.
>
> OK, but then you're only forming a consensus of the people who are
> there, rather than all interested parties.
>
> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.

+1

I only got on the mailing lists 2 weeks ago because I wanted to ask a
question to dev.  If you come in to OSM by reading the wiki, it appears
as though all the discussion happens on talk pages.  There's nothing at
all indicating that the mailing list is where it's at.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Peter Budny]

"Mike N."  writes:

>> If you want to mention among other places frequented by US mappers,
>> feel free
>
>  Some people detest the mailing list signup grind, and thus choose the
> web forum at http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewforum.php?id=20 . 

There's a forum?

I don't have a problem with have lots of different modes of
communication, but it really needs to be made clear which one is THE
preferred way to talk to People Who Know Things and seek out community
agreement.  It seems like that's the mailing lists (at the moment),
possibly followed by the wiki as a repository of information, but that's
not obvious from reading http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contact
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Peter Budny]

Nathan Edgars II  writes:

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Phil! Gold  wrote:
>> == "Some Interstates Show Exits—Others Don't" ==
>>
>> This is really just a problem with map coverage, not tagging convention,
>> but I'd like to ask about consensus on name= and ref= tags for
>> motorway_junctions.  ref= is pretty obviously the exit number, but
>> although some wiki pages (Interstate Highways, in particular) say or imply
>> that everything on the exit sign should go into the name= tag (including
>> the junction road but also further destinations like towns and distant
>> roads).  I think it makes more sense to just have the junctioned road (or
>> really significant destination road, like when the junctioned road is
>> almost always just a means to get to another major road) in the name= tag
>> and use the destination sign relation for the other information.
>> Thoughts?
>
> I believe exit_to is for the text on the sign, and name is for an
> actual name *if one exists*. Often a toll road will have named
> interchanges, but this is rare otherwise.

Wouldn't it be a lot nicer to use destination relations to tag this?  A
motorway_junction node could be referred to in multiple destination
relations, one for each thing on the sign (for example: US 78, US 278, Main
Street, Wharf District).  The relations could refer to the route
relations, so we could get nicely drawn shield for Interstates and US
Highways.

Along these lines, maybe we should talk about junction relations.  They
would be really useful for indicating which map features (traffic
signals, motorway junctions, etc) are really one logical entity, and
should be represented as such on the map at higher zoom levels.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Mike N.]

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction has
mentioned it for several months. Browsing through
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit_to I see use in Florida
(me), the UK, and France. There's also some use of
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/exit:to .


 If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the 
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed.  Eventually, all the existing 
entries must be converted.   (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the 
name= part of the motorway_junction yet)




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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N.  wrote:
>  If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
> talk list and get the JOSM preset changed.  Eventually, all the existing
> entries must be converted.   (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
> name= part of the motorway_junction yet)

What JOSM preset is this? The highway=motorway_junction one has name
and number, which is correct. The only issue is whether what's on the
sign is the name, or whether the name is something that doesn't exist
at all exits.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Mike N.]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Mike N.  wrote:

 If we're serious about starting to use exit_to, let's float this on the
talk list and get the JOSM preset changed.  Eventually, all the existing
entries must be converted.   (Hopefully no map data consumer is using the
name= part of the motorway_junction yet)


What JOSM preset is this? The highway=motorway_junction one has name
and number, which is correct. The only issue is whether what's on the
sign is the name, or whether the name is something that doesn't exist
at all exits.


That's the preset I was referring to.   If we decide that placing sign 
destinations into exit_to instead of name will be common, the exit_to field 
should be added to the preset dialog to prompt people that something has 
changed. 



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Paul Johnson]

On 10/15/2010 11:47 AM, Val Kartchner wrote:

> The standard should be something easy to parse.  Perhaps, for the above
> example, it would be "US:UT:SR-67".  This would allow an easy way to
> parse which shield to use.  For instance, a made-up Canadian route would
> be "CA:BC:12".  The colons would designate a field, and a space or dash
> would indicate a subfield.  The renderer could just use all but the last
> field to figure out which shield to use ("US:UT" or "CA:BC"), then use
> the last subfield of the last field to draw the shield.  This would work
> for an instance I've seen in New Hampshire which would be "US:NH:3A".

This is why we have route relations.  It's getting to the point of
ridiculous that we don't have proper rendering of something as basic as
a route relation.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Paul Johnson]

On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees 
>  wrote:
>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
>> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
>> The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
>> a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
>> the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's
>> not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
>> (most importantly) implements it.
> 
> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
> also relatively easy to use IRC,

Yet you're never in channel when people are trying to contact you.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees 
>>  wrote:
>>> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
>>> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
>>> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
>>> The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
>>> a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
>>> the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. It's
>>> not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
>>> (most importantly) implements it.
>>
>> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
>> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
>> also relatively easy to use IRC,
>
> Yet you're never in channel when people are trying to contact you.

I've been in the IRC channel *once* maybe six months ago.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Paul Johnson]

On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees 
>  wrote:
>> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
>> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
>> or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
>> our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
>> network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
>> renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
> 
> This only works in relations because of overlaps. And relations are
> too easy to break (split a way and upload the new ways only).

They're not easy to break if you're using a proper editor and being careful.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees 
>>  wrote:
>>> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=* or
>>> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for network=us_route/state_route/county_route
>>> or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in
>>> our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
>>> network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
>>> renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
>>
>> This only works in relations because of overlaps. And relations are
>> too easy to break (split a way and upload the new ways only).
>
> They're not easy to break if you're using a proper editor and being careful.

When you ensure that all new mappers are being careful, tell us. New
mappers (and even some experienced ones) do break relations.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Paul Johnson]

On 10/16/2010 05:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Paul Johnson 
>  wrote:
>> On 10/15/2010 03:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees 
>>>  wrote:
 Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
 mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
 people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
 The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
 a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
 the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. 
 It's
 not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
 (most importantly) implements it.
>>>
>>> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
>>> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
>>> also relatively easy to use IRC,
>>
>> Yet you're never in channel when people are trying to contact you.
> 
> I've been in the IRC channel *once* maybe six months ago.

That's my point.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Paul Johnson]

On 10/16/2010 05:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> When you ensure that all new mappers are being careful, tell us.

I won't need to, you'll know it before everyone else, since that'll
happen around the time you leave.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Toby Murray]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> This is why we have route relations.  It's getting to the point of
> ridiculous that we don't have proper rendering of something as basic as
> a route relation.

Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to
render highway shields in the US?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Mike N.]

Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to
render highway shields in the US?


  Mapquest may be using relations to generate shields, but I have seen 
Interstate shields on Interstate highways with no relations, so relations 
aren't  their only source for shields.




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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Phil! Gold]

* Toby Murray  [2010-10-16 20:56 -0500]:
> Didn't we determine that Mapquest is most likely using relations to
> render highway shields in the US?

I've looked at their stylesheets, and they're not.  They're just matching
the "I" or "US" at the beginning of the ways' ref= tags.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation.  I rarely think in
words at all.  A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words
afterward.
   -- Albert Einstein
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Kate Chapman]

AJ,

I'm not disposing of IRC, frankly I use it myself.  I'm just saying
that there are downsides/upsides to both phone calls/email/IRC/IM/etc.
 My real point is that new people probably don't want to argue about
tags in the first place.  Many people come to mapping parties and say
"what do you want me to map?"  Or I've also heard 'I don't care to map
anything in-particular, but I want to help out."  If people really
want to discuss tagging badly enough they will figure out whatever the
form of communication is and deal with it.  Key is coming out of that
communication is a guide that others can use.

-Kate

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Al Haraka  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Kate Chapman  wrote:
>> There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
>> phone call.  All that aside though I think key is just to have some
>> level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
>> place.
>>
>> New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know
>> how to map.  By making that easier and having standards documented in
>> a clear way they will.
>>
>> -Kate
>
> Kate, I understand where you are going with this, but I think the wiki
> is pretty clear on how low the barrier to entry can be if there is a
> web-based IRC-client.
>
> http://irc.openstreetmap.org/
>
> I personally dislike the idea of disposing of one avenue of
> communication because of "barrier to entry."  I would say in this case
> it means the people in the channel or on the call care enough to put
> in an effort.  Either way, it costs time or money, regardless of the
> choice.  I personally prefer IRC only for the reason that it is easy
> to document everything that is said and done with minimal effort.
> Someone has to take notes on a phone call, and sometimes those notes
> can be inadequate or inaccurate.  That is my only reservation.  Of
> course, IRC has its own downsides.
>
> Whatever is decided, I welcome the idea of organizing.  I too am very
> concerned about knowing how to map, and I see this as a positive
> development.  Thanks to everyone for getting motivated about this.
>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
 Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
 mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
 people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
 The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and form
 a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two are
 the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. 
 It's
 not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
 (most importantly) implements it.
>>>
>>> You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
>>> barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
>>> also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the
>>> proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation
>>> - again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need
>>> either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call,
>>> plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting
>>> will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?").
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Al Haraka]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Kate Chapman  wrote:
> AJ,
>
> I'm not disposing of IRC, frankly I use it myself.  I'm just saying
> that there are downsides/upsides to both phone calls/email/IRC/IM/etc.
>  My real point is that new people probably don't want to argue about
> tags in the first place.  Many people come to mapping parties and say
> "what do you want me to map?"  Or I've also heard 'I don't care to map
> anything in-particular, but I want to help out."  If people really
> want to discuss tagging badly enough they will figure out whatever the
> form of communication is and deal with it.  Key is coming out of that
> communication is a guide that others can use.
>
> -Kate

I was playing devil's advocate to an extent.  :-)  Personally, I am of
the opinion that if you want to talk about tagging bad enough, you
will use whatever medium it takes to get the job done.  I know I will.
 I welcome all calls/IRC chats, and will try to participate in
whatever is set up, since I am one of the more novice people that
desperately needs to better understand the tags.

> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Al Haraka  wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:20 PM, Kate Chapman  wrote:
>>> There are some people where IRC is a higher barrier to entry than a
>>> phone call.  All that aside though I think key is just to have some
>>> level of consensus and then have the information available in a clear
>>> place.
>>>
>>> New people don't care about arguing about tags, they just want to know
>>> how to map.  By making that easier and having standards documented in
>>> a clear way they will.
>>>
>>> -Kate
>>
>> Kate, I understand where you are going with this, but I think the wiki
>> is pretty clear on how low the barrier to entry can be if there is a
>> web-based IRC-client.
>>
>> http://irc.openstreetmap.org/
>>
>> I personally dislike the idea of disposing of one avenue of
>> communication because of "barrier to entry."  I would say in this case
>> it means the people in the channel or on the call care enough to put
>> in an effort.  Either way, it costs time or money, regardless of the
>> choice.  I personally prefer IRC only for the reason that it is easy
>> to document everything that is said and done with minimal effort.
>> Someone has to take notes on a phone call, and sometimes those notes
>> can be inadequate or inaccurate.  That is my only reservation.  Of
>> course, IRC has its own downsides.
>>
>> Whatever is decided, I welcome the idea of organizing.  I too am very
>> concerned about knowing how to map, and I see this as a positive
>> development.  Thanks to everyone for getting motivated about this.
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Nathan Edgars II  
>>> wrote:
 On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> Surely we're missing plenty of people by only having a discussion on the
> mailing list? SoTM.US proved to me that there are orders of magnitude more
> people interested in OSM in the US than are signed up for talk-us.
> The difference is that the people who care enough to talk about it and 
> form
> a consensus between those on talk-us and maybe even a phone call or two 
> are
> the ones that will actually make the changes to the wiki and renderers. 
> It's
> not that there's "one consensus" it's whoever gets a consensus faster and
> (most importantly) implements it.

 You're getting a consensus of those who can get past the higher
 barrier to entry. It's relatively easy to join a mailing list. It's
 also relatively easy to use IRC, though you have to be free at the
 proper time. It's a bit harder to participate in a phone conversation
 - again you can't have anything else scheduled then, and you need
 either a microphone or a willingness to pay for a long-distance call,
 plus the ability to understand various accents (or half the meeting
 will be "can you please repeat that? can you speak more clearly?").

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=*
or ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
network=us_route/state_route/county_route or similar). For example the
"I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in our tags. If it's an
interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest network=interstate
but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the renderer can add
the "I-" if it wants to.


i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
its own, separate tag.


For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers 
can only handle ways for now…


Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin 
Highway 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have 
ref=10;66;39.  Not very useful for determining which is which.



i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
route involves using the actual county name, e.g.


I wouldn’t say it’s wrong.  “Unnecessary” probably, since county roads / 
highways / trunk highways don’t, as far as I know, have different signs 
within a state.


For the curious, I documented CTH for the county highway ref= prefix 
partly because I’m from Wisconsin, but mostly because the 
three-character designation is not likely to be mistaken for a state or 
country designation.  (I know it’s possible to have the renderer look at 
where the way is, but it's a hell of a lot simpler to just read the prefix)


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>> i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
>> route involves using the actual county name, e.g.
>
> I wouldn’t say it’s wrong.  “Unnecessary” probably, since county roads /
> highways / trunk highways don’t, as far as I know, have different signs
> within a state.

In most states they at least mention the name of the county (though we
obviously wouldn't do this on maps); Wisconsin may be alone in leaving
it off. Some counties (usually those that started signing routes
before the now-standard blue pentagon was created) have very different
designs, especially in New York (example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_County_Route_30_NY.svg - for
others scroll down to near the bottom of
http://shields.aaroads.com/thumbs.php?state=NY). Minnesota uses both
squares and pentagons; this may be on a countywide basis.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/18/2010 03:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

i've seen an argument that the correct network value for a county
route involves using the actual county name, e.g.


I wouldn’t say it’s wrong.  “Unnecessary” probably, since county roads /
highways / trunk highways don’t, as far as I know, have different signs
within a state.


In most states they at least mention the name of the county (though we
obviously wouldn't do this on maps); Wisconsin may be alone in leaving
it off. Some counties (usually those that started signing routes
before the now-standard blue pentagon was created) have very different
designs, especially in New York (example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Erie_County_Route_30_NY.svg - for


Good to know.  If they used the same pattern everywhere, just changing 
the name, I would still be in favor of simply recording that it was a 
county highway, but since different counties within a state use entirely 
different signs I stand corrected.  It is useful to have the county name 
in the network tag.


Perhaps it would be useful to make a wiki page documenting which states 
and counties have “non-standard” signs?


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers can
> only handle ways for now…

I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.

"For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
rather quickly.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:

I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.

"For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
rather quickly.


I for one would consider that to be vandalism.  I also doubt its 
efficacy, as the maintainers of the renderers have no vested interest in 
having relations render as we might like.


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
>>
>> "For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
>> from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
>> rather quickly.
>
> I for one would consider that to be vandalism.

Perhaps, but you'd be wrong.

> I also doubt its efficacy,
> as the maintainers of the renderers have no vested interest in having
> relations render as we might like.

I don't know how you might like them to be rendered, but the
maintainers of the renderers certainly have a vested interest in
rendering relations properly, especially if relations are the only
place to get the information.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
>>>
>>> "For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
>>> from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
>>> rather quickly.
>>
>> I for one would consider that to be vandalism.
>
> Perhaps, but you'd be wrong.

And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
>>>
>>> "For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
>>> from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
>>> rather quickly.
>>
>> I for one would consider that to be vandalism.
>
> Perhaps, but you'd be wrong.

I would also consider it to be vandalism. The ref tags on ways, if
nothing else, provide a level of redundancy. It's too easy to
accidentally break a relation; for example
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5980437 removed
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/80643754 and
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/80643765 from three relations
(84533, 398569, and 399254). Here it's relatively easy to fix (once
one notices the problem), but in a congested city center it might not
be clear which road the relation was supposed to be on.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony  wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:


I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.

"For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
rather quickly.


I for one would consider that to be vandalism.


Perhaps, but you'd be wrong.


And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck.


And having no shields at all is a big improvent.  Oh, wait, it’s not.

In what strange alternate universe do you live where deleting valid 
information which is stored following the current documented system, is 
not vandalism?


Fix the renderers, don’t just delete valid data and hope someone else 
fixes them.


I’m sure patches would be welcome:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/667
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/1666
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2610
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2864

—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>>> On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:

 I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.

 "For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
 from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
 rather quickly.
>>>
>>> I for one would consider that to be vandalism.
>>
>> Perhaps, but you'd be wrong.
>
> I would also consider it to be vandalism.

Okay, so you'd be wrong too.

> The ref tags on ways, if nothing else, provide a level of redundancy.

The fact that they provide redundancy is one of the things that's
wrong with them.

> It's too easy to accidentally break a relation;

Agreed.  And until that gets fixed, we should at least be able to see
on the map when such breakage occurs.  Hiding the breakage helps no
one.  And if relations break more than ref tags on ways, then
renderers are going to use the ref tags on ways, which means they're
never going to get it right.



On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck.
>
> And having no shields at all is a big improvent.  Oh, wait, it’s not.

No, it's a step toward fixing the current mess.

> In what strange alternate universe do you live where deleting valid
> information which is stored following the current documented system, is not
> vandalism?

First of all, the ref tags aren't valid.  The numbers are references
of *routes*, not of *ways*.

Secondly, they are redundant.  In what strange alternative universe do
you live in where deleting redundant information is vandalism?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
 On 10/18/2010 04:16 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> I guess renderers are going to be wrong or now.
>
> "For now" shouldn't last too long, though.  Just remove the ref info
> from the ways, and the renderers will likely get their act together
> rather quickly.

 I for one would consider that to be vandalism.
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but you'd be wrong.
>>
>> I would also consider it to be vandalism.
>
> Okay, so you'd be wrong too.

But, once again.  That's the prevalent attitude.  And that's why the
maps are shit.

I've wasted enough time on this.  Sorry for interrupting your comedy of errors.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > On 10/15/2010 05:08 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> >> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Ian Dees <
> ian.dees-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=*
> or
> >>> ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
> network=us_route/state_route/county_route
> >>> or similar). For example the "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up
> anywhere in
> >>> our tags. If it's an interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest
> >>> network=interstate but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the
> >>> renderer can add the "I-" if it wants to.
> >>
> >> This only works in relations because of overlaps. And relations are
> >> too easy to break (split a way and upload the new ways only).
> >
> > They're not easy to break if you're using a proper editor and being
> careful.
>
> When you ensure that all new mappers are being careful, tell us. New
> mappers (and even some experienced ones) do break relations.


Ways and relations are equally easy to "break": in both cases it's the
client's job to apply tags to the new primitive and/or add the primitive to
the relation. I haven't tried in Potlatch, but I know that JOSM does the
correct thing when I've split ways in the past.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

> On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the network=*
>>> or ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
>>> network=us_route/state_route/county_route or similar). For example the
>>> "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in our tags. If it's an
>>> interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest network=interstate
>>> but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the renderer can add
>>> the "I-" if it wants to.
>>>
>>>  i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
>> its own, separate tag.
>>
>
> For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers
> can only handle ways for now…
>
>
This is a data project, not a renderer project. If the renderers aren't
doing the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing. Lars
Ahlzen and I have been thinking about ways to get the renderer to show the
highway shield and it appears that osm2pgsql creates a geometry for each of
the route relations, meaning that highway shields can be rendered
"correctly" with a bit of Mapnik stylesheet hacking.


> Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin Highway
> 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have ref=10;66;39.  Not
> very useful for determining which is which.


That's what routes are for.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> Ways and relations are equally easy to "break"

Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
way. A way is always uploaded with its tags, but for various reasons
(editor bugs, huge relations causing timeouts, lost connections) split
ways can get uploaded without the relation being properly uploaded.
For several months, I was actively maintaining the U.S. Highway and
Interstate relations, and almost every day there was at least one
problem that needed fixing. In the vast majority of cases, the ways
retained the proper tags. If you don't believe me, please spend some
time going through the errors on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nakor/US_relations_check and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Nakor/Interstate_relations_check
using Nakor's tool
(http://toolserver.org/~nakor/relation.fcgi?relation=30981).

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > Ways and relations are equally easy to "break"
>
> Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
> way.


Yes, they are, because a relation membership and new way (with new tags and
node refs) are both completely separate new entities that need to be
uploaded. If an editor can reliably do it with a new way then it can also
reliably do it with a new relation member.


> A way is always uploaded with its tags,


Yes, but the new (split) way is not necessarily always uploaded.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> > Ways and relations are equally easy to "break"
>>
>> Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
>> way.
>
> Yes, they are, because a relation membership and new way (with new tags and
> node refs) are both completely separate new entities that need to be
> uploaded. If an editor can reliably do it with a new way then it can also
> reliably do it with a new relation member.

When a way is downloaded from the API, its tags are all downloaded,
but a separate API query has to be sent to get any referring
relations.
>
>>
>> A way is always uploaded with its tags,
>
> Yes, but the new (split) way is not necessarily always uploaded.

Relations are uploaded after new ways to avoid precondition failures.
Thus it's much more likely that a connection will fail between the way
and the relation than between two ways. I've seen Potlatch take
several tries to upload a large relation, which compounds the possible
problem. It's also obvious from the map when a portion of a way is
accidentally deleted, but even if relations were used to render
shields an error would not always be obvious.

I have seen these problems in my work on repairing relations. Do you
have any such experience?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> >> > Ways and relations are equally easy to "break"
> >>
> >> Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
> >> way.
> >
> > Yes, they are, because a relation membership and new way (with new tags
> and
> > node refs) are both completely separate new entities that need to be
> > uploaded. If an editor can reliably do it with a new way then it can also
> > reliably do it with a new relation member.
>
> When a way is downloaded from the API, its tags are all downloaded,
> but a separate API query has to be sent to get any referring
> relations.
>

Presumably if you are splitting a way you will have already downloaded at
least the one relation way member that you want to split.


> >
> >>
> >> A way is always uploaded with its tags,
> >
> > Yes, but the new (split) way is not necessarily always uploaded.
>
> Relations are uploaded after new ways to avoid precondition failures.
> Thus it's much more likely that a connection will fail between the way
> and the relation than between two ways. I've seen Potlatch take
> several tries to upload a large relation, which compounds the possible
> problem. It's also obvious from the map when a portion of a way is
> accidentally deleted, but even if relations were used to render
> shields an error would not always be obvious.
>

If the renderer uses route relations to render roads, why would errors be
any less obvious than when ways were used?


>
> I have seen these problems in my work on repairing relations. Do you
> have any such experience?
>

I have been offering suggestions to solve the route problems in the original
thread. Do you have any such suggestions?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Nathan Edgars II 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:
>> >> > Ways and relations are equally easy to "break"
>> >>
>> >> Nope. They're not, because relation membership is not a tag on the
>> >> way.
>> >
>> > Yes, they are, because a relation membership and new way (with new tags
>> > and
>> > node refs) are both completely separate new entities that need to be
>> > uploaded. If an editor can reliably do it with a new way then it can
>> > also
>> > reliably do it with a new relation member.
>>
>> When a way is downloaded from the API, its tags are all downloaded,
>> but a separate API query has to be sent to get any referring
>> relations.
>
> Presumably if you are splitting a way you will have already downloaded at
> least the one relation way member that you want to split.

But you haven't necessarily downloaded the relation itself. On the
other hand, it's impossible to download a way without its tags.
>> >>
>> >> A way is always uploaded with its tags,
>> >
>> > Yes, but the new (split) way is not necessarily always uploaded.
>>
>> Relations are uploaded after new ways to avoid precondition failures.
>> Thus it's much more likely that a connection will fail between the way
>> and the relation than between two ways. I've seen Potlatch take
>> several tries to upload a large relation, which compounds the possible
>> problem. It's also obvious from the map when a portion of a way is
>> accidentally deleted, but even if relations were used to render
>> shields an error would not always be obvious.
>
> If the renderer uses route relations to render roads, why would errors be
> any less obvious than when ways were used?
>
If the new (split) way is not uploaded, it shows up as a gap in the
road. That's going to be really obvious.
>>
>> I have seen these problems in my work on repairing relations. Do you
>> have any such experience?
>
> I have been offering suggestions to solve the route problems in the original
> thread. Do you have any such suggestions?

I have no problem with the solution of using relations, but ref tags
on ways should remain as a backup.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Peter Budny]

Ian Dees  writes:

> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>
> On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
>
> I don't think we should be storing any prefix as part of the
> network=*
> or ref=* tags (thus my suggestion for
> network=us_route/state_route/county_route or similar). For example
> the
> "I-x" denotation shouldn't show up anywhere in our tags. If it's
> an
> interstate it should be tagged as such (I suggest network=
> interstate
> but I think there's a precedent on the wiki) and the renderer can
> add
> the "I-" if it wants to.
>
> i agree, it's a rendering prefix for a ref tag value and deserves
> its own, separate tag.
>
> For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers
> can only handle ways for now…
>
> This is a data project, not a renderer project. If the renderers aren't doing
> the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing.

+1

Continuing to use ref= tags at all when we have relations that represent
a much cleaner way to tag roads is a terrible case of tagging for the
renderer.  I think it's premature to remove ref tags, but I don't see
any point in adding them to new ways, rather than just creating a
relation.

If the relations keep getting broken, we ought to fix the tools people
are using so it isn't as easy to break them.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Val Kartchner]

On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 14:25 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
> [...]  Instead, I would treat it as a road that needed a
> custom shield, if any shield was rendered at all.  I'll note that Google,
> Bing, and Mapquest all appear to have punted on this; none of them renders
> any shield at all on it.

Why should we consider the big map providers a ceiling as to what Open
Street Map should be?  Why don't we consider these providers as a
minimum goal?

- Val -


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Paul Johnson]

On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote:

> First of all, the ref tags aren't valid.  The numbers are references
> of *routes*, not of *ways*.

Seems like whenever I point that out, the counterargument is that there
should be different tags for refs that actually do have anything at all
to do with the way, rather than putting route refs where they belong in
route relations...



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

On 10/18/2010 04:41 PM, Anthony wrote:

And, in fact, that attitude is exactly why the maps currently suck.


And having no shields at all is a big improvent.  Oh, wait, it’s not.


No, it's a step toward fixing the current mess.


No, fixing the renderers is what’s needed to fix the current “mess”.


In what strange alternate universe do you live where deleting valid
information which is stored following the current documented system, is not
vandalism?


First of all, the ref tags aren't valid.  The numbers are references
of *routes*, not of *ways*.


The numbers are references of neither.  “ways” is a concept built by 
openstreetmap, and has no true analogue in the real world.


You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are 
references of *streets*, not of *ways*”.  But that’s both silly and 
irrelevant.  We have to apply the tags we have to the elements we have.


So just like applying a name= tag to a way to say “this way is part of 
the street named foo”, we must apply a ref= tag to a way to say “this 
way is part of the route with reference foo” in order to get it to show 
up on the map.  It’s what we’ve got for now; until we have something 
better we have to live with it.



Secondly, they are redundant.  In what strange alternative universe do
you live in where deleting redundant information is vandalism?


The world we actually live in, where sometimes you need redundant data 
in order to be able to make use of it.  At some point (hopefully) the 
renderers will be able to handle ref tags on route relations.  At that 
point, the documentation can be updated to note that applying ref tags 
to ways is deprecated (at least for routes, which AFAIK is the only 
current use of ref tags on ways).  Only then do ref tags on ways becomes 
*extraneous* as well as redundant, and they can reasonably be removed. 
And at that time I’ll be happy to be among the first to start deleting them.


Fix the renderers first.

—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> First of all, the ref tags aren't valid.  The numbers are references
>> of *routes*, not of *ways*.
[snip]
> You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references
> of *streets*, not of *ways*”.

I could, and I have, actually.

> So just like applying a name= tag to a way to say “this way is part of the
> street named foo”, we must apply a ref= tag to a way to say “this way is
> part of the route with reference foo” in order to get it to show up on the
> map.  It’s what we’ve got for now; until we have something better we have to
> live with it.

In terms of routes, we do have something better.  Route relations.

There are also street relations, but so far they are only proposed.

> Fix the renderers first.

Don't tag for the renderer.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Nathan Edgars II]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Anthony  wrote:
> Don't tag for the renderer.

Don't tag *incorrectly* for the renderer.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Anthony  wrote:
>> Don't tag for the renderer.
>
> Don't tag *incorrectly* for the renderer.

Exactly!

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 02:06 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 2:59 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

On 10/18/2010 04:54 PM, Anthony wrote:

First of all, the ref tags aren't valid.  The numbers are references
of *routes*, not of *ways*.

[snip]

You could equally say “the name tags aren’t valid; the names are references
of *streets*, not of *ways*”.


I could, and I have, actually.


And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, 
if a little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a 
single way (and also a usability nightmare in editors).  But I also 
don’t think that removing the names from every way in the hopes that 
someone will notice the problem and fix the renderer would be the right 
way to go.  Same for ref tags.



 until we have something better we have to
live with it.


In terms of routes, we do have something better.  Route relations.


We don’t have something better.  We have the *start* of something better.


Fix the renderers first.


Don't tag for the renderer.


That’s not tagging for the renderer.  “Tagging for the renderer” would 
be if I wanted my fenceline to show up as a blue line at a low zoom 
level, so I might it highway=motorway.  That’s wrong.  Tagging something 
accurately, but also applying something which is not your pet schema, is 
not wrong, and is not “tagging for the renderer”.


No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current 
standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. 
Once the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that 
instead, and stop using the current system.


—Alex Mauer “hawke”.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/18/2010 09:53 PM, Peter Budny wrote:

Ian Dees  writes:

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
 For relations I agree, but for ways this doesn’t work.  And as renderers
 can only handle ways for now…

This is a data project, not a renderer project.


It’s actually kinda both.  Without the renderers, the data is useless 
(at least for making a map—analysis is still useful)



If the renderers aren't doing
the right thing then we need to make them do the right thing.


+1


+1 from me as well.


Continuing to use ref= tags at all when we have relations that represent
a much cleaner way to tag roads is a terrible case of tagging for the
renderer.  I think it's premature to remove ref tags, but I don't see
any point in adding them to new ways, rather than just creating a
relation.


If you want them to actually appear on this map we’re making, you kind 
of need to add them to new ways until renderers support the new system. 
 If you don’t care whether or not they appear on the map, what’s the 
point of adding them?


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a
> little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single
> way (and also a usability nightmare in editors).  But I also don’t think
> that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice
> the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go.

I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until
you have the names in the relations.  At the point where you do, sure,
they should be removed.  The idea that no one will ever create a
renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous.  It would
be trivial to write a preparser to take the names from the street
relations and stick them on the ways, which could then be fed right
back into a stupid renderer that knows nothing about relations.  This
wouldn't be a particularly good solution, but it'd get you back to
where you were tagging the ways (with the improvement that the tags
for a single route would be consistent), and it could be written in a
couple hours, probably much less by anyone who knows anything about
how the renderer works.

> No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current
> standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once
> the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead,
> and stop using the current system.

What about the route relation needs to be improved?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote:

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if a
little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a single
way (and also a usability nightmare in editors).  But I also don’t think
that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will notice
the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go.


I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until
you have the names in the relations.  At the point where you do, sure,
they should be removed.  The idea that no one will ever create a
renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous.


Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in 
the present, using the tools we have now.



It would
be trivial to write a preparser 


Sounds good.  Why hasn’t it been done, then?


No matter how much you may wish it were otherwise, part of the current
standard system is to apply ref=* to the ways which make up the route. Once
the route relation is better, I’m sure people will start using that instead,
and stop using the current system.


What about the route relation needs to be improved?


Renderer support, and a decision about how to handle mixed 
dual/single-carriageway roads. Should it be one relation per direction 
plus a super-relation, or one relation with roles? In either case, 
validator support needs improvement.


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 02:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
>>>
>>> And I agree that street relations are a better option in the long run, if
>>> a
>>> little silly for the majority of cases where a street consists of a
>>> single
>>> way (and also a usability nightmare in editors).  But I also don’t think
>>> that removing the names from every way in the hopes that someone will
>>> notice
>>> the problem and fix the renderer would be the right way to go.
>>
>> I certainly wouldn't recommend removing the names from the ways until
>> you have the names in the relations.  At the point where you do, sure,
>> they should be removed.  The idea that no one will ever create a
>> renderer which uses the names in the relations is ludicrous.
>
> Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in the
> present, using the tools we have now.

That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in
trying to do that.  There are much better places for me to get maps in
the present.  OSM, to me at least, is about the data, and how it can
be used in the future.  Especially in the United States.

>> It would
>> be trivial to write a preparser 
>
> Sounds good.  Why hasn’t it been done, then?

Because it's unnecessary, because no one has removed the ref tags from the ways.

It's also more difficult to write the preparser when you have
contradictory information on the ways.  Part of the process of
removing the information from the ways would be to reconcile
inconsistencies and decide which of the two pieces of information is
correct and which is incorrect.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Toby Murray]

So to get back to the basics of this thread... I think we can all
agree that we should (and are) using relations to represent highway
routes and that we need to get renderer support for route relations
ASAP.

So then the question is what tags to use on relations. From what I
have seen in the wiki and from most people around here, the accepted
convention is as follows.

For example, Kansas highway 18:
type = route
route = road
network = US:KS
ref = 18
(optional?) symbol=* tag

I haven't messed with any US highways. I believe I saw someone suggest
"US:US" for the network? And interstates seem to be "US:I"

Yes/No?

There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"

If this information is accurate then renderers can decide if they want
a dash or a shield or what have you. That is not a concern of the
mapper.

I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag
on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a
couple of times - for example "name=KS 18"

The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in
editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when
displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part
of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of
tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it.

What to do with ref=* tags on individual ways is a separate
discussion. Let's focus on getting a concrete system in place that we
can go beat the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as
a US community come out with a solid plan and say "we need this now"
people will listen.

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map 
in the

>> present, using the tools we have now.
>
> That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in
> trying to do that.

…you may want to consider some other project, then.

>>> It would
>>> be trivial to write a preparser
>>
>> Sounds good.  Why hasn’t it been done, then?
>
> Because it's unnecessary, because no one has removed the ref tags 
from the ways.


Sure, it’s unnecessary…unless you want people to stop applying the ref 
tags to ways.


> It's also more difficult to write the preparser when you have
> contradictory information on the ways.  Part of the process of
> removing the information from the ways would be to reconcile
> inconsistencies and decide which of the two pieces of information is
> correct and which is incorrect.

Not necessary.  Use the route relation and ignore the way ref data.

Or if you’re particularly ambitious, just combine the two, ignoring 
duplicates and you’re good.  So a way which was tagged WI-66 and a 
member of a relation tagged with network=US:WI + ref=66 would end up 
with two final-rendering ref values (One WI-66, one US:WI 66).  It’s not 
the end of the world, and I am quite certain that it’d get fixed PDQ.


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 03:27 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

So to get back to the basics of this thread... I think we can all
agree that we should (and are) using relations to represent highway
routes and that we need to get renderer support for route relations
ASAP.


+1



So then the question is what tags to use on relations.


All documented long ago at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route (especially 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Tags )



There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"


Yup, there’s debate about that.

I’d prefer something like US:KS:CTH or US:KS:COUNTY.  Or even US:KS:CR, 
though I don’t like the two-character code as it looks just like a state 
abbreviation.


IMO, connecting the road to the county should be done with a relation 
(super-relation actually) between the route and the boundary of the 
applicable county.



I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag
on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a
couple of times - for example "name=KS 18"


It is incorrect on a route relation unless it does have a name, like 
“The Joe Q. Bloggs Memorial Parkway” or something like that.



The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in
editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when
displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part
of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of
tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it.


Exactly.  The tools should be improved.  The interface for relations in 
josm (not sure about potlatch) is atrocious.



Let's focus on getting a concrete system in place that we
can go beat the rendering people over the head with. I think if we as
a US community come out with a solid plan and say "we need this now"
people will listen.


We’ve had one for a long time.  What’s needed is for someone to do the 
hard (“trivial” as Anthony would say) work of actually making use of the 
plan.


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Peter Budny]

Toby Murray  writes:

> For example, Kansas highway 18:
> type = route
> route = road
> network = US:KS
> ref = 18
> (optional?) symbol=* tag

Also an optional wikipedia link.

> There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
> throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"

+1

The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two
county roads apart which use the same number.  (Analogously, you
wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?)

I don't see any advantage to abbreviating the county name... that just
seems like more effort for mappers, with no real payback.  (I certainly
don't know abbreviations for all 159 counties in Georgia.)

> I do have one question: Is it acceptable/proper to have a name=* tag
> on a relation? I have seen it on some and have actually used it a
> couple of times - for example "name=KS 18"
>
> The only advantage I see is that it makes things easier to read in
> editors and when browsing data since the name tag is used when
> displaying relations in lists or listing what relations a way is part
> of instead of just showing the numeric ID. But this is a case of
> tagging for tools so I could see reasonable objections to it.

Well, the question is, does the name apply to the whole route?  For
basic cases, you might have "name=Interstate 75" or "name="U.S. Route
41".  For KY-555 you might have "name=Kentucky Route 555" and
"loc_name=Triple 5 Highway".

However, there are many stretches of road that are designated "Col. John
Q Public Memorial Highway" or something like that.  It only applies to
part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a
bridge or an intersection).  In that case, it belongs on the ways, not
the route.

So, there seems to be utility for both.  The question is, what happens
when both a way and a relation have name= set, and they don't match?
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 03:09 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> Agreed, but that does us little good when we’re trying to make a map in
>>> the
>>> present, using the tools we have now.
>>
>> That's not what I'm trying to do, because I don't see the point in
>> trying to do that.
>
> …you may want to consider some other project, then.

What project would you recommend?  I'm looking for a project that
creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to
anyone who wants them.  Not one that makes maps in the present, using
the tools we have now.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:

What project would you recommend?  I'm looking for a project that
creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to
anyone who wants them.  Not one that makes maps in the present, using
the tools we have now.


Well, presumably you’d want to start your own.  That way it can always 
be a perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with 
the tools that you have in the present.


—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:

> On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> What project would you recommend?  I'm looking for a project that
>> creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to
>> anyone who wants them.  Not one that makes maps in the present, using
>> the tools we have now.
>>
>
> Well, presumably you’d want to start your own.  That way it can always be a
> perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools
> that you have in the present.


Can we stop biting each other in the ass and switch back to having a civil
conversation? We're all in the same project working towards the same goal.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Anthony]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Alex Mauer  wrote:
> On 10/19/2010 04:00 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> What project would you recommend?  I'm looking for a project that
>> creates and provides free geographic data such as street maps to
>> anyone who wants them.  Not one that makes maps in the present, using
>> the tools we have now.
>
> Well, presumably you’d want to start your own.  That way it can always be a
> perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools
> that you have in the present.

What would be the point of that?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Peter Budny  wrote:

> Toby Murray  writes:
>
> > For example, Kansas highway 18:
> > type = route
> > route = road
> > network = US:KS
> > ref = 18
> > (optional?) symbol=* tag
>
> Also an optional wikipedia link.
>
> > There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
> > throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"
>
> +1
>

As I've mentioned further up this thread we need a way to specify what sort
of route it is. There's no easy way to determine if it's a US/State/County
route from the proposed set of tags.


> [...snip...]
> So, there seems to be utility for both.  The question is, what happens
> when both a way and a relation have name= set, and they don't match?


For the most part, I doubt route relations will be used for rendering names
(only shields), so I don't know that we should worry about the name too
much.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote:

For example, Kansas highway 18:
type = route
route = road
network = US:KS
ref = 18
(optional?) symbol=* tag


Also an optional wikipedia link.


There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"


The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two
county roads apart which use the same number.  (Analogously, you
wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?)


A relation with the boundary relation.  This could be done with US:STATE 
as well, but I think the use of the postal abbreviation for states is 
well-established while this is not the case for counties.


You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into 
the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed in 
once place.  (I know linking to such things is a little iffy though)



I don't see any advantage to abbreviating the county name... that just
seems like more effort for mappers, with no real payback.  (I certainly
don't know abbreviations for all 159 counties in Georgia.)


+1.


However, there are many stretches of road that are designated "Col. John
Q Public Memorial Highway" or something like that.  It only applies to
part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a
bridge or an intersection).  In that case, it belongs on the ways, not
the route.


Yup, or on another route relation.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Peter Budny]

Alex Mauer  writes:

> On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>>> There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
>>> throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"
>>
>> The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two
>> county roads apart which use the same number.  (Analogously, you
>> wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?)
>
> A relation with the boundary relation.  This could be done with
> US:STATE as well, but I think the use of the postal abbreviation for
> states is well-established while this is not the case for counties.

I would actually support that... but not yet.  It would be fairly easy
to convert from the current form to that (just write a bot to go through
and change network=US: to network=US:STATE and add it to the
super-relation), so why not put that off until the tools have improved?
People complain enough about breaking ordinary route relations, I'd hate
to see the bitching when someone breaks an entire state.

> You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into
> the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed
> in once place.  (I know linking to such things is a little iffy
> though)

I'd support this, too... for generic shields that look like "put numbers
inside an outline of the state" we could do this, and then handle the
exceptions as such, but I'd be quite happy right now just to have
ordinary symbol= tags rendered.

>> However, there are many stretches of road that are designated "Col. John
>> Q Public Memorial Highway" or something like that.  It only applies to
>> part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a
>> bridge or an intersection).  In that case, it belongs on the ways, not
>> the route.
>
> Yup, or on another route relation.

What, so make the route relation contain sub-relations for each distinct
stretch of road, recursively, until it gets down to single ways that
can't be combined (e.g. due to different bridge/tunnel tags, speed
limits, etc)?

So you'd have something like (forgive my syntax)

  
  
  
  



  
  



  
  



...and so on.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \

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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 05:24 PM, Peter Budny wrote:

Alex Mauer  writes:

You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into
the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed
in once place.  (I know linking to such things is a little iffy
though)


I'd support this, too... for generic shields that look like "put numbers
inside an outline of the state" we could do this, and then handle the
exceptions as such, but I'd be quite happy right now just to have
ordinary symbol= tags rendered.


There was (is) some work done (I think by JohnSmith) to get this sort of 
thing done.  Wikipedia has some blank SVGs with placeholder digits which 
can be substituted; it’s not hard at all with the appropriate fonts to 
make that bit work, or to modify an existing numbered SVG.  Only problem 
is that you generally need a different sign for 3-digit vs. 2-digit 
signs (and sometimes 1-digit signs as well).



However, there are many stretches of road that are designated "Col. John
Q Public Memorial Highway" or something like that.  It only applies to
part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a
bridge or an intersection).  In that case, it belongs on the ways, not
the route.


Yup, or on another route relation.


What, so make the route relation contain sub-relations for each distinct
stretch of road, recursively, until it gets down to single ways that
can't be combined (e.g. due to different bridge/tunnel tags, speed
limits, etc)?


It could be done that way, but I was thinking of a more single-level 
approach:



 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 


  
  


  


  
  
  




  



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

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

[Alex Mauer]

On 10/19/2010 04:11 PM, Anthony wrote:

Well, presumably you’d want to start your own.  That way it can always be a
perfect system in the future, never actually producing a map with the tools
that you have in the present.


What would be the point of that?


I don’t know, it’s what you seem to want to do.

I’ll take Ian’s advice and stop here.

—Alex Mauer “hawke”


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