Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
I prefer your proposal, I find it more aesthetically pleasing. From a developer's perspective, it's one less separate tag to read and parse. No big fundamental objections to doing it the other way, however. As long as we arrive at one convention and stick with it. Martijn On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 10:15 PM, James Mast wrote: > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the > segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as > "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are > still being used too) > > Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly > stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything > like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage > has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions > for the different styles): > > I-26: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg > I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG > I-74: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg > I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs > Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments > inside of relations: > network=US:I:Future > > However, somebody else suggested this: > network=US:I > modifier=Future > > Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always > change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme > for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. > > -James (rickmastfan67) > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the > segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as > "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are > still being used too) > > Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly > stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything > like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage > has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions > for the different styles): > > I-26: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg > I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG > I-74: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg > I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs > Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments > inside of relations: > network=US:I:Future > > However, somebody else suggested this: > network=US:I > modifier=Future > > Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always > change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme > for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. > > -James (rickmastfan67) > > ___ > 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] Future Interstate Relations
But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no 'children', right? If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being > confused with a county level network. > On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: > >> Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the >> following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the >> segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as >> "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are >> still being used too) >> >> Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage >> clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing >> anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The >> signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT >> divisions for the different styles): >> >> I-26: >> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg >> I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG >> I-74: >> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg >> I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs >> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" >> segments inside of relations: >> network=US:I:Future >> >> However, somebody else suggested this: >> network=US:I >> modifier=Future >> >> Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always >> change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme >> for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. >> >> -James (rickmastfan67) >> >> ___ >> 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 > > -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional (above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of bike networks that don't always fit the Sustrans schema cleanly, like greater Tulsa's INCOG network or greater Portland's Metro Region network, that don't get distinguished from the more minor county and city networks). On Jun 25, 2013 11:08 AM, "Martijn van Exel" wrote: > But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no > 'children', right? > > If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be > the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route > and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is > imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being >> confused with a county level network. >> On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: >> >>> Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the >>> following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the >>> segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as >>> "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are >>> still being used too) >>> >>> Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage >>> clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing >>> anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The >>> signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT >>> divisions for the different styles): >>> >>> I-26: >>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg >>> I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG >>> I-74: >>> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg >>> I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs >>> Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" >>> segments inside of relations: >>> network=US:I:Future >>> >>> However, somebody else suggested this: >>> network=US:I >>> modifier=Future >>> >>> Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always >>> change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme >>> for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. >>> >>> -James (rickmastfan67) >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.us/ > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
Paul Johnson writes: Not likely but not entirely out of the possibility given some regional (above county, below state) names, which would be an issue if we were to bring bike networks into the hierarchical scheme (which seems like a good idea since the US has some rather complex hierarchy of bike networks that don't always fit the Sustrans schema cleanly, like greater Tulsa's INCOG network or greater Portland's Metro Region network, that don't get distinguished from the more minor county and city networks). The four levels of bike routes (continental/international, national, regional/state and local) that OSM supports in its current tagging scheme truly fit a European/UK/Sustrans model better than what we have in this realm in the USA. In addition to the "odd ducks" that Paul notes, there are a number of what I am naming with Kerry Irons of ACA "quasi-national" and "private-national" routes, like the Mississipi River Trail (MRT) and the East Coast Greenway (ECG). Both MRT and ECG are not sponsored by governments, but rather "private" (or quasi-private, sometimes charitable, sometimes for-profit) organizations. And so, where do these "fit in" to the bicycle networking schema used in OSM? Currently, these two (there are dozens more, hundreds if we include more state/regional sized routes) are considered to be so "national in scope" that they share bicycle network "address space" along with AASHTO's United States Bicycle Route (USBR) numbering. So, for example on a rendering like http://cycling.waymarkedtrails.org/en/?zoom=5&lat=39.3&lon=-92&hill=0&route=1# we see routes 1, 20, 35, and 76, but we also see MRT and ECG. In the case of MRT, there is even a segment which has been designated by AASHTO as USBR 45, yet folks in Minnesota are "proud of their (MRT) brand" (says Kerry) that we found a way in OSM renderings to respect both (dual naming, super-relation inclusion...). This is similar to how the Lincoln Highway or National Road are still historical designators or enthusiast names which are still respected, but state/national highway numbering have largely "superceded" (though not completely) these historical names. The situation is similar with USBR 45 and MRT in Minnesota, and once again, as long as consensus is reached as to the semantics, with careful tagging, OSM's tagging syntax is able to accommodate. So, what I am saying is that while icn/ncn/rcn/lcn is a bit restrictive as a cycleway networking numbering scheme, being derived from "government only" UK/European/Sustrans models, OSM is able to fit into it the multitude of mixed government and private routing found in the USA. It isn't always easy, and discussion can be tedious and lengthy, but I believe it can be done. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? From: m...@rtijn.org Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 To: ba...@ursamundi.org CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no 'children', right? If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are still being used too) Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions for the different styles): I-26: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG I-74: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments inside of relations: network=US:I:Future However, somebody else suggested this: network=US:I modifier=Future Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. -James (rickmastfan67) ___ 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 -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.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] Future Interstate Relations
That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa... On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast wrote: > Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? > > > -- > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 > To: ba...@ursamundi.org > CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > > But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no > 'children', right? > > If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be > the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route > and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is > imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being > confused with a county level network. > On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: > > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the > segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as > "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are > still being used too) > > Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly > stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything > like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage > has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions > for the different styles): > > I-26: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg > I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG > I-74: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg > I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs > Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments > inside of relations: > network=US:I:Future > > However, somebody else suggested this: > network=US:I > modifier=Future > > Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always > change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme > for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. > > -James (rickmastfan67) > > ___ > 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 > > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.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] Future Interstate Relations
I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route? Remember, we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for Interstate highways. Sometimes both types in the same city. -James Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:06:58 -0500 From: ba...@ursamundi.org To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: m...@rtijn.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa... On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast wrote: Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? From: m...@rtijn.org Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 To: ba...@ursamundi.org CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no 'children', right? If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are still being used too) Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions for the different styles): I-26: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG I-74: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments inside of relations: network=US:I:Future However, somebody else suggested this: network=US:I modifier=Future Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. -James (rickmastfan67) ___ 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 -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.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 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
Modifier would be able to handle both situations, but is there a situation where a business loop or spur with the same number meet that would necessitate getting to that level of specificity? On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM, James Mast wrote: > I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route? Remember, > we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for Interstate highways. > Sometimes both types in the same city. > > -James > > -- > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:06:58 -0500 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > CC: m...@rtijn.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, > US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain > US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like > US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa... > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast wrote: > > Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? > > > -- > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 > To: ba...@ursamundi.org > CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > > But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no > 'children', right? > > If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be > the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route > and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is > imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being > confused with a county level network. > On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: > > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the > segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as > "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are > still being used too) > > Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly > stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything > like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage > has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions > for the different styles): > > I-26: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg > I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG > I-74: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg > I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs > Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments > inside of relations: > network=US:I:Future > > However, somebody else suggested this: > network=US:I > modifier=Future > > Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always > change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme > for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. > > -James (rickmastfan67) > > ___ > 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 > > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.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 > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
There are two Interstate Business Routes in Winslow, AZ for I-40 that intersect each other. I-40 Business Spur http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1933534 I-40 Business Loop http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1933535 -James Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:41:06 -0500 From: ba...@ursamundi.org To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: m...@rtijn.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations Modifier would be able to handle both situations, but is there a situation where a business loop or spur with the same number meet that would necessitate getting to that level of specificity? On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM, James Mast wrote: I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route? Remember, we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for Interstate highways. Sometimes both types in the same city. -James Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:06:58 -0500 From: ba...@ursamundi.org To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com CC: m...@rtijn.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa... On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast wrote: Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? From: m...@rtijn.org Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 To: ba...@ursamundi.org CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no 'children', right? If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being confused with a county level network. On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are still being used too) Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions for the different styles): I-26: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG I-74: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments inside of relations: network=US:I:Future However, somebody else suggested this: network=US:I modifier=Future Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. -James (rickmastfan67) ___ 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 -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.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 ___ 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] Future Interstate Relations
Looks like the "spur" extends the "loop," I'm not sure I'd differentiate them in modifier, but might in the description. A little surprised I didn't catch that, though to be fair, I was more closely trying to follow Historic US 66 trailblazers last time I was there (I'm too lazy to look over my old G+ posts right now, but I think I stayed the night in Winslow because it was getting dark and I was driving the historic route for the sights after leaving Meteor Crater. My plan got blown the day after that one when I forgot labor day weekend is a big rodeo weekend, and i wasn't able to find a motel room anywhere between Albuquerque and home, meaning I drove from Albuquerque to Tulsa in a single, 19-hour journey, making local stops until it got too dark to do anything (roughly the giant cross in north texas) and everything was closed for the night, if not the long weekend (roughly by the time I got to Clinton, OK), which was disappointing since Oklahoma's segment of US 66 is about the most landmark rich part of the western half of 66, save for Oatman-Santa Monica Pier...) On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:01 PM, James Mast wrote: > There are two Interstate Business Routes in Winslow, AZ for I-40 that > intersect each other. > I-40 Business Spur http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1933534 > I-40 Business Loop http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1933535 > > -James > > -- > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:41:06 -0500 > > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > CC: m...@rtijn.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > Modifier would be able to handle both situations, but is there a situation > where a business loop or spur with the same number meet that would > necessitate getting to that level of specificity? > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM, James Mast wrote: > > I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route? Remember, > we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for Interstate highways. > Sometimes both types in the same city. > > -James > > -- > Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:06:58 -0500 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > CC: m...@rtijn.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > That'd be modifier=Business, no? US:US has no lower level, unlike say, > US:TX, which has US:TX:FM* or US:OK, which would also contain > US:OK:Turnpike (Oklahoma's secondary toll highway system) or a county, like > US:CA:San_Bernardino, or a city, like US:OK:Tulsa:Tulsa... > > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:49 PM, James Mast wrote: > > Wouldn't the Business routes of Interstates count as 'children'? > > > -- > From: m...@rtijn.org > Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:07:52 -0600 > To: ba...@ursamundi.org > CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > > But that would not apply to the Interstate network, which otherwise has no > 'children', right? > > If the modifier paradigm also applies to State Routes, then there would be > the possibility of confusion between US:UT:Future as a future state route > and US:UT:Future as a county highway in 'Future County'. I guess it is > imaginable. Not likely, but imaginable. > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I prefer the modifier proposal, since it prevents "Future" from being > confused with a county level network. > On Jun 24, 2013 11:16 PM, "James Mast" wrote: > > Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the > following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the > segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as > "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are > still being used too) > > Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly > stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything > like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage > has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions > for the different styles): > > I-26: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg > I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG > I-74: > http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg > I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs > Now, I'm going to initially use the followi
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
* James Mast [2013-06-26 22:34 -0400]: > I thought the "modifier" would be the type of Business route? > Remember, we do have "Business Spurs" and "Business Loops" for > Interstate highways. Sometimes both types in the same city. Every Business Interstate is signed as either a spur or loop, so I would consider the full modifier to be either "Business Spur" or "Business Loop". For lack of a better approach, I set up the shield rendering to process them with network values of US:I:Business:Spur and US:I:Business:Loop. I guess the value of the modifier tag could be either "Business:Spur" or "Business Spur". -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- $a='X'; print map "\$a='$a'; $_, q($_)", q(print map "\$a='$a';$_, q($_)") ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
* Paul Johnson [2013-06-26 23:25 -0500]: > Looks like the "spur" extends the "loop," I'm not sure I'd differentiate > them in modifier, but might in the description. They're signed differently, so I think that makes them distinct enough to be treated differently. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Photons have neither morality nor visas. -- David Farber --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with tagging these "Future" Interstates? I just "remembered" there was one other Interstate in NC posted this way, I-295 [1] in Fayetteville, NC. So, I've fixed that relation as well to follow the network way I originally suggested till we all, once and for all, have decided on the way to tag these. -James [1] - http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html From: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:15:36 -0400 Subject: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations Later tonight, I'm planning on splitting up the relations for the following Interstates (I-26, I-73, I-74) in North Carolina to separate the segments of said Interstates into normal and the parts that are posted as "Future". (will also update the ref tags on the ways since they are still being used too) Now, the "Future" ones will only be for segments that have signage clearly stating they are "Future Interstates". I'm not going to be doing anything like this for ones signed as "Future Interstate Corridors". The signage has to be like the following to qualify (blame different NCDOT divisions for the different styles): I-26: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg I-73: http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG I-74: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg I-840: http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs Now, I'm going to initially use the following to tag the "Future" segments inside of relations:network=US:I:Future However, somebody else suggested this: network=US:I modifier=Future Which do you guys think would be the better way to go? I can always change the relation tags later once we all agree on a proper tagging scheme for these types of Interstates that aren't true Interstates just yet. -James (rickmastfan67) ___ 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] Future Interstate Relations
* James Mast [2013-07-09 01:40 -0400]: > So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with > tagging these "Future" Interstates? Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: network=US:I:Future ref= modifier=Future and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd recommend tagging as above. Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and 840. Are there any others? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
There is one other. I mentioned it in my e-mail from yesterday (07-09-13). That is I-295 in Fayetteville. http://gribblenation.net/ncfutints/fut295.html And to be honest, I thought some people wanted the ":Future" part dropped out and just put in the "modifier" area. -James > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:40:58 -0400 > From: phi...@pobox.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > * James Mast [2013-07-09 01:40 -0400]: > > So, does anybody else have any more comments on how we should deal with > > tagging these "Future" Interstates? > > Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: > > network=US:I:Future > ref= > modifier=Future > > and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd > recommend tagging as above. > > Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and > 840. Are there any others? > > ___ > 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] Future Interstate Relations
* James Mast [2013-07-10 08:59 -0400]: > There is one other. I mentioned it in my e-mail from yesterday > (07-09-13). That is I-295 in Fayetteville. Okay, I've got that one in my rendering now, too. > And to be honest, I thought some people wanted the ":Future" part > dropped out and just put in the "modifier" area. This time around, one person suggested that. (In previous discussions there was a second opinion along those lines, but he's not on this list at the moment.) In the past, everyone else who's voiced an opinion has gone for the US:I:Future style of tagging, and no one else even chimed in this time. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: > > network=US:I:Future > ref= > modifier=Future > > and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd > recommend tagging as above. > > Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and > 840. Are there any others? > I don't think we hit a consensus, did we? Seems like we were talking about whether having a modifier tag or not, and if not, including the banner in the network. I don't recall anybody proposing doing both (which seems redundant on multiple levels). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
* Paul Johnson [2013-07-10 10:16 -0500]: > I don't think we hit a consensus, did we? Seems like we were talking > about whether having a modifier tag or not, and if not, including the > banner in the network. As I documented at http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Highway-Shield-Rendering-tt5612357.html#a5640994 , I think there's definitely a consensus around putting the banner in the network. > I don't recall anybody proposing doing both (which seems redundant on > multiple levels). I don't recall a specific discussion about whether to use the modifier tag with the banner already in the network tag, but the wiki (at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_with_relations ) implies that the modifier tag should duplicate the banner present elsewhere, and I've seen the practice in OSM data (from at least NE2, but I'm reasonably sure I've seen other people tagging in this way, too). Separately from the practice that I've seen, I think that having the modifer separate as well as in the network tag allows data consumers to easily work back to the "root" network while still preserving the uniqueness constraints for consumers that only process the network and ref tags. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: network=US:I:Future ref= modifier=Future and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd recommend tagging as above. Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, 74, and 840. Are there any others? 86 in New York, so signed for various segments of NY 17. https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
Is there picture proof of how they are signing it? -James > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:43:47 -0400 > From: kken...@nycap.rr.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > > > > Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: > > > > network=US:I:Future > > ref= > > modifier=Future > > > > and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, I'd > > recommend tagging as above. > > > > Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, > > 74, and > > 840. Are there any others? > > 86 in New York, so signed for various segments of NY 17. > https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86 > > > > ___ > 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] Future Interstate Relations
Here's someone's picture of a "Future 86" shield from a few years ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/iccdude/5516141266/ And also some band by that name with nonstandard "FUTURE" lettering on the shield: http://www.flickr.com/photos/89048316@N00/1815241606/ Eric On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57 AM, James Mast wrote: > Is there picture proof of how they are signing it? > > -James > > > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:43:47 -0400 > > From: kken...@nycap.rr.com > > > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote: > > > > > > Given that previous list consensus was for tagging of the form: > > > > > > network=US:I:Future > > > ref= > > > modifier=Future > > > > > > and that only one person offered a variant opinion this time around, > I'd > > > recommend tagging as above. > > > > > > Also, from your earlier emails, I have future interstates 26, 73, > > > 74, and > > > 840. Are there any others? > > > > 86 in New York, so signed for various segments of NY 17. > > https://www.dot.ny.gov/regional-offices/multi/i-86 > > > > > > > > ___ > > 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] Future Interstate Relations
On 07/11/2013 01:57 PM, James Mast wrote: Is there picture proof of how they are signing it? Would http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-8/Reg8-2.JPG do? That's in Monroe, New York (and not my picture). If my word is no good, will my camera be any better? I plan to be down that way in another week or so, and I could probably grab another picture. I can certainly state that I've seen the sign pictured there. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations
That looks legit enough to qualify IMO for the "US:I:Future" network. Looks like some of the I-74 signs that are posted out there in NC [0]. Still., those signs need to be posted along a segment to qualify for the network. If the signs are the "Future Interstate Corridor" type [1], then that segment would NOT qualify for the "US:I:Future" network as it means there is a slim possibility that alignment might be bypassed. That's happened with several "Future I-74 Corridor" alignments. -James [0] - http://goo.gl/maps/mMIHW [1] - http://www.texasfreeway.com/houston/photos/59sw/59sw.shtml (need to scroll down some) > Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 19:23:52 -0400 > From: kken...@nycap.rr.com > To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Future Interstate Relations > > On 07/11/2013 01:57 PM, James Mast wrote: > > Is there picture proof of how they are signing it? > > Would http://www.upstatenyroads.com/submit/region-8/Reg8-2.JPG > do? That's in Monroe, New York (and not my picture). > > If my word is no good, will my camera be any better? > I plan to be down that way in another week or so, and > I could probably grab another picture. I can certainly > state that I've seen the sign pictured there. > > -- > 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin > > > > ___ > 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
