Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)
On Oct 24, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: >> >> >> NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving the >> route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g. >> turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to the >> supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should be >> correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the >> route number, without any network information." >> http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html > > ... > > As far as what to do from here... damned if I know. I don't think > anyone wants NE2 banned (he's a dedicated armchair mapper and > contributes a lot to OSM, even if he's somewhat pigheaded in applying > his own particular approaches in places where it's not as clear he has > a lot of local knowledge), but at the same time he doesn't seem to be > willing to concede on this point which IMO has become an obstacle to > improving the map as-used by Skobbler, Mapbox, Stamen, Cloudmade, > Mapquest etc downstream. I guess my advice would be to proceed but be > cautious of blowback. That's what I've ultimately decided to do. I'm in semi-regular conversation with NE2 offlist, and while I'm happy with my own changes and stand by them, I also have no interest in an edit war or a situation where NE2's valuable contributions are put in jeopardy. If he feels strongly enough to revert them, I'd be okay with that. I have no opinion on the network vs. modifier question, but I do believe that ref tags should be usable as-is in a renderer, so that's the direction my changes have taken. I'll let this all sit for a while, to see where it winds up in a few weeks. -mike. michal migurski- contact info and pgp key: sf/cahttp://mike.teczno.com/contact.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five changesets: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612825 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612736 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13613023 > > Offlist, I've been talking to NE2 about the edits, and he pointed out this > morning that they negatively affect shield rendering on Aperiodic: > > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.7166&lon=-77.79472&layers=B > > "Whereas formerly relations with network=US:US and the modifier in the ref > failed somewhat gracefully if a bit pigheadedly (by not displaying shields at > all), they now show up incorrectly as mainline routes." - NE2 > > NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving the > route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g. > turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to the > supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should be > correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the > route number, without any network information." > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html This is not surprising. To give you a little bit of background... the original idea (when I drafted the material on route relation tagging) was basically to follow the convention that you followed in the remapping that got uploaded. For example, Bypass US 129 would be: network=US ref=129 modifier=bypass Somewhere along the way, it was decided that all the US networks (including the US and I networks) should start with US:, giving us: network=US:US ref=129 modifier=bypass Then there was some concern that people editing relations might "forget" the modifier - i.e. accidentally use a "US 129 Bypass" relation when tagging "US 129." Or renderers would Do The Wrong Thing if they were modifier-unaware. So two potential solutions emerged: network=US:US ref=129 Bypass or network=US:US:Bypass ref=129 with or without the modifier tag. There are technical and aesthetic arguments for and against both. The first solution correctly notes that these "modifier" networks aren't really true, distinct networks; they are local spurs or loops off the main network, so at the very least the tag "network" is a misnomer. ref is the only other tag that most mappers and data consumers will look at, so it's the logical place to put the modifier. (Using another tag instead just brings us back to the original problem that consumers or mappers might forget to set or look for it.) The second solution points out that ref was originally designed to be parsing-free for consumers - you put the content of "ref" on the shield selected from network and (optionally) modifier - and even though "network" may not be a good name for the tag, data consumers can use it as an index for the correct route marker to select without consulting other tags. Anyway, NE2 (and seemingly only NE2) favor(ed/s) the first one. Everyone else seems to have gravitated toward the second one. NE2 points to this lack of consensus and continues to do what he does. Everyone else continues to do what they do. As people go around and edit things, they get switched from one to the other (in a form of low-level guerrilla edit warfare). (Same thing has happened with ref tags on ways... same person versus the world.) Since the two forms aren't that different data consumers could preprocess data from one form to the other form. Then again having everybody do the same thing simplifies the lives of data consumers. The shield rendering team has decided to only accept the second form, for whatever reason (presumably because it makes their lives easier). As far as what to do from here... damned if I know. I don't think anyone wants NE2 banned (he's a dedicated armchair mapper and contributes a lot to OSM, even if he's somewhat pigheaded in applying his own particular approaches in places where it's not as clear he has a lot of local knowledge), but at the same time he doesn't seem to be willing to concede on this point which IMO has become an obstacle to improving the map as-used by Skobbler, Mapbox, Stamen, Cloudmade, Mapquest etc downstream. I guess my advice would be to proceed but be cautious of blowback. Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)
That is my understanding as well based on previous discussions. For For US Business route 80: network = US:US:Business ref = 80 On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Alexander Jones wrote: > Using your example, the network tag should say "US:US:Business" > > Alexander > > Michal Migurski wrote: > > > On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > > > >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > >> > >>> I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the > >>> intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a > slightly > >>> different approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier > tags. > >>> I can standardize the US:US and US:I networks along with US:CA where I > >>> live, but I should hold off on attempting to overfit other states' > >>> network tags. > >> > >> > >> Here's the newest: > >> http://mike.teczno.com/img/OSM-Extracted-Routes-changes-2.csv.zip > >> > >> There are 5,828 changes now. I have left the network tags alone, > >> generally. Most changes are focused on the ref and modifier tags. > > > > I'm looking for advice & feedback. > > > > I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five > changesets: > > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612825 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612736 > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13613023 > > > > Offlist, I've been talking to NE2 about the edits, and he pointed out > this > > morning that they negatively affect shield rendering on Aperiodic: > > > > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.7166&lon=-77.79472&layers=B > > > > "Whereas formerly relations with network=US:US and the modifier in the > ref > > failed somewhat gracefully if a bit pigheadedly (by not displaying > shields > > at all), they now show up incorrectly as mainline routes." - NE2 > > > > NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving > > the route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, > e.g. > > turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to > > the supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should > be > > correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the > > route number, without any network information." > > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html > > > > I'm looking for guidance on this changeset, with the intent of making > > route relation information in the US internally consistent. I can simply > > revert it, but I wasn't happy with the state of relation tags before and > > I'll continue to look for ways to make them consistent nationally. I can > > apply a new changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information in > > the modifier tags to the ref tags, but this feels incorrect. I can apply > > an alternative changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information > > to the *network* tags (another recommendation from the Aperiodic tagging > > guideline), but previous conversations about this change led me to > believe > > that messing with the network tags too much would be a Bad Idea. > > > > For those of you with an interest in the route relations, what do you > > think is the correct next move here? > > > > NE2, I've been talking to you offlist but I hope you jump in here. > > > > -mike. > > > > > > michal migurski- m...@stamen.com > > 415.558.1610 > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Dale Puch ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)
Using your example, the network tag should say "US:US:Business" Alexander Michal Migurski wrote: > On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: >> >>> I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the >>> intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly >>> different approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier tags. >>> I can standardize the US:US and US:I networks along with US:CA where I >>> live, but I should hold off on attempting to overfit other states' >>> network tags. >> >> >> Here's the newest: >> http://mike.teczno.com/img/OSM-Extracted-Routes-changes-2.csv.zip >> >> There are 5,828 changes now. I have left the network tags alone, >> generally. Most changes are focused on the ref and modifier tags. > > I'm looking for advice & feedback. > > I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five changesets: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612825 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612736 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13613023 > > Offlist, I've been talking to NE2 about the edits, and he pointed out this > morning that they negatively affect shield rendering on Aperiodic: > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.7166&lon=-77.79472&layers=B > > "Whereas formerly relations with network=US:US and the modifier in the ref > failed somewhat gracefully if a bit pigheadedly (by not displaying shields > at all), they now show up incorrectly as mainline routes." - NE2 > > NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving > the route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g. > turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to > the supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should be > correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the > route number, without any network information." > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html > > I'm looking for guidance on this changeset, with the intent of making > route relation information in the US internally consistent. I can simply > revert it, but I wasn't happy with the state of relation tags before and > I'll continue to look for ways to make them consistent nationally. I can > apply a new changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information in > the modifier tags to the ref tags, but this feels incorrect. I can apply > an alternative changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information > to the *network* tags (another recommendation from the Aperiodic tagging > guideline), but previous conversations about this change led me to believe > that messing with the network tags too much would be a Bad Idea. > > For those of you with an interest in the route relations, what do you > think is the correct next move here? > > NE2, I've been talking to you offlist but I hope you jump in here. > > -mike. > > > michal migurski- m...@stamen.com > 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote: > >> I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the >> intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly >> different approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier tags. I >> can standardize the US:US and US:I networks along with US:CA where I live, >> but I should hold off on attempting to overfit other states' network tags. > > > Here's the newest: > http://mike.teczno.com/img/OSM-Extracted-Routes-changes-2.csv.zip > > There are 5,828 changes now. I have left the network tags alone, generally. > Most changes are focused on the ref and modifier tags. I'm looking for advice & feedback. I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five changesets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612825 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612736 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13613023 Offlist, I've been talking to NE2 about the edits, and he pointed out this morning that they negatively affect shield rendering on Aperiodic: http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.7166&lon=-77.79472&layers=B "Whereas formerly relations with network=US:US and the modifier in the ref failed somewhat gracefully if a bit pigheadedly (by not displaying shields at all), they now show up incorrectly as mainline routes." - NE2 NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving the route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g. turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to the supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should be correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the route number, without any network information." http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html I'm looking for guidance on this changeset, with the intent of making route relation information in the US internally consistent. I can simply revert it, but I wasn't happy with the state of relation tags before and I'll continue to look for ways to make them consistent nationally. I can apply a new changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information in the modifier tags to the ref tags, but this feels incorrect. I can apply an alternative changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information to the *network* tags (another recommendation from the Aperiodic tagging guideline), but previous conversations about this change led me to believe that messing with the network tags too much would be a Bad Idea. For those of you with an interest in the route relations, what do you think is the correct next move here? NE2, I've been talking to you offlist but I hope you jump in here. -mike. michal migurski- m...@stamen.com 415.558.1610 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
