Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2012-04-11 17:33 -0700]:
On Apr 11, 2012 11:48 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
From what I've read, all US highways in California should get similar
treatment, in that they're signed with different shields than the standard
ones. Are there other regional sign variants for broader road networks in
the US (or elsewhere)?
Some US highways (segments of US 75A for sure) and many state highways
feature generic white circle state route signage, though it's not clear to
me if this was deliberate or a case of sign shop error, or older signs not
yet replaced, respectively.
I think I'd prefer to ignore unusual or one-off sign variations like
those. Let me put it this way: Are there any other places where a local
organization responsible for making and placing signs along a route has an
official policy of placing signs that differ significantly in appearance
from the signs used along the rest of the network? US Business routes in
Maryland meet these criteria. Where else is this true?
--
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
main(a){printf(a=main(a){printf(a=%c%s%c,34,a,34);},34,a,34);}
--- --
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:01 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2012-04-11 17:33 -0700]: On Apr 11, 2012 11:48 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: From what I've read, all US highways in California should get similar treatment, in that they're signed with different shields than the standard ones. Are there other regional sign variants for broader road networks in the US (or elsewhere)? Some US highways (segments of US 75A for sure) and many state highways feature generic white circle state route signage, though it's not clear to me if this was deliberate or a case of sign shop error, or older signs not yet replaced, respectively. I think I'd prefer to ignore unusual or one-off sign variations like those. Let me put it this way: Are there any other places where a local organization responsible for making and placing signs along a route has an official policy of placing signs that differ significantly in appearance from the signs used along the rest of the network? That's what I wasn't clear about above. Though Wikipedia's articles and the actual ground truth seems to show that what is signed as US 75A is actually OK 75A, since it seems Oklahoma considers US bannered/lettered routes as state highways and may not consistently sign it wholly as a state or US highway. Another highway with confusing inconsistencies would be US 412. Parts of it include: - Cherokee Turnpike (signed as Cherokee Turnpike, not signed as US412). - US 412 Scenic (old US 412, a loop bypassing the Cherokee Turnpike, the last free exit in both directions where the turnpike starts; signed as US 412S or US 412 Scenic). - OK 412A (not sure of signage, but is definitely related to US 412; may actually be US 412 Alternate) - OK 412B (not sure of signage, but is definitely related to US 412; may actually be US 412 Business) - OK 412P (signed as OK 412P, definitely a spur of US 412 at the Arkansas River Navigation System; may actually be US 412 Port) Arkansas seems to have similar quirks to Oklahoma on US highways between the Cherokee border and Bentonville; not sure if this is regionalistic signage issues or if the business/alternate/port/scenic roads are really state highways as a result. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
* Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.com [2012-04-08 07:07 -0700]: Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com: It seems to me that network=US:US:Business:MD is the logical extension of a scheme that has US:US and US:US:Business. My initial reaction is that this goes too far in mixing geographic, classification, and rendering concepts, which has a bad smell I plan on experimenting with basing some rendering decisions on the is_in tag, which should work for Maryland's US business routes (assuming it works at all; is_in values aren't really standardized). From what I've read, all US highways in California should get similar treatment, in that they're signed with different shields than the standard ones. Are there other regional sign variants for broader road networks in the US (or elsewhere)? -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and to think what nobody else has thought. -- Albert Szent-Gyoergi --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 11, 2012 11:48 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: From what I've read, all US highways in California should get similar treatment, in that they're signed with different shields than the standard ones. Are there other regional sign variants for broader road networks in the US (or elsewhere)? Some US highways (segments of US 75A for sure) and many state highways feature generic white circle state route signage, though it's not clear to me if this was deliberate or a case of sign shop error, or older signs not yet replaced, respectively. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 4, 2012 12:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/4/2012 2:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Renderers can fallback to the longest left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't understand. Bad idea. Google Maps does something like this and it results in 'bannered' routes appearing without banners. Seems like renderer and/or data issues at Google. Neither would surprise me, given the number of routes that render numbers as names without shields, and for how long Google was insisting US 30 was really Québec Provincial Route 355 nationwide. That said, just because Google can't do that right shouldn't have any influence on us getting it right. Let's not throw out a Good Idea just because some renderer we don't even use gets it wrong on data we don't even touch. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com: It seems to me that network=US:US:Business:MD is the logical extension of a scheme that has US:US and US:US:Business. My initial reaction is that this goes too far in mixing geographic, classification, and rendering concepts, which has a bad smell: * It forces one to state explicitly what is already available implicitly somewhere else: if a renderer wants to display a Maryland-specific US Business shield, then it can already do so by determining whether the point at which the US:US:Business shield is to be rendered is within MD. Alternatively, the renderer could look for a responsible agency or owning agency style tag. (I don't even know if such a tag exists, admittedly.) * It forces mappers to have knowledge of which agencies use non-standard shields, so that they can break the relations at those agencies and add the agency-specific tag. (Whereas, where agencies use the standard shield, relations can stretch over agency boundaries.) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com: modifier=* would represent MUTCD-type banners attached to the shield This is the first I've heard of this tag. I don't recall it being discussed when we were hashing ideas around on this last summer. (Not that that is reason to discount it.) But what came out of that discussion was the following guidance: ref will store the unique identifier within a particular classification, where particular classification is stored wholly in the network tag. So, network=US:US:Business/ref=13 and network=US:US:Truck/ref=70 both conform to that definition. network=US:US/modifier=Business/ref=13 does not. Are US:US:Business and US:US:Truck true networks? Perhaps not. Would it be correcter to separate truck and business into other tags? Perhaps. Is storing business and truck within the network tag causing confusion for data consumers and not a workable solution? Doesn't look like it from the proof of concept renderer posted on here. Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com: That said it may be easier to combine modifiers/banners into the network as subtypes. Renderers can fallback to the longest left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't understand. Whatever folks want to do (including modifier - banner) would be fine with me; it's not like there are thousands of relations that would need to be changed to the consensus that emerges. Agreed...good points. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/8/2012 10:27 AM, Craig Hinners wrote: Chris Lawrencelordsu...@gmail.com: modifier=* would represent MUTCD-type banners attached to the shield This is the first I've heard of this tag. I don't recall it being discussed when we were hashing ideas around on this last summer. (Not that that is reason to discount it.) But what came out of that discussion was the following guidance: ref will store the unique identifier within a particular classification, where particular classification is stored wholly in the network tag. So, network=US:US:Business/ref=13 and network=US:US:Truck/ref=70 both conform to that definition. network=US:US/modifier=Business/ref=13 does not. On the other hand, network=US:US ref=13 Business does. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:49 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/8/2012 10:27 AM, Craig Hinners wrote: Chris Lawrencelordsu...@gmail.com: modifier=* would represent MUTCD-type banners attached to the shield This is the first I've heard of this tag. I don't recall it being discussed when we were hashing ideas around on this last summer. (Not that that is reason to discount it.) But what came out of that discussion was the following guidance: ref will store the unique identifier within a particular classification, where particular classification is stored wholly in the network tag. So, network=US:US:Business/ref=13 and network=US:US:Truck/ref=70 both conform to that definition. network=US:US/modifier=Business/ref=13 does not. On the other hand, network=US:US ref=13 Business does. For what it's worth, as a renderer I preferred the modifier tag when doing the Terrain shields: http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#13/34.0510/-118.2146 Modifiers in the ref tag would be a close second; those typically need a lot of scrubbing and normalization anyway. In the network tag would be the biggest hassle of all. I'm working on a revision to the Terrain tiles, by the way, and I'm curious if I got anything obviously wrong with the highways that I should look at fixing. One thing I'll be attempting is to get the shields to behave a little less sloppily as they meander along routes, probably by staggering them more. -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] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: After more thought, in the general case, deprecating modifier and just using network to denote variations using the established : separator convention is probably sanest. Well, that kind of breaks the whole network concept then, and the key should probably be renamed to fit the expected data... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
* Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org [2012-04-04 14:01 -0700]: OK, I'll bite. How is putting banners in the network tag preferential? why not something like... network=US:TX:FM modifier=Business network=US:US modifier=Business is_in=Maryland Each of the potential tagging schemes had drawbacks. One of the chief drawbacks of this one is that a naive data consumer that looks at the network and ref tags but not the modifier tag will get drastically incorrect results. (If it looks only at the network tag, then that's useful information on its own. If it looks only at the ref tag, it's not that useful, but it's also not likely to come to incorrect conclusions about the data.) For the record, the drawbacks of the other approaches are: * network=US:US, ref=50 Business Mingles base reference numbers and route modifiers together in a way that's difficult or at least annoying for data consumers to process. Addressing this problem was one reason for separating the network and ref tags on route relations in the first place. * network=US:US:Business, ref=50 Separates mainline routes from their alternates and variants, even though all of them are, outside of OSM, in the same road network. Complicates things for data consumers who care about the main network but not whether a route is a mainline or variant (not that there are any such consumers that I know of, but it would be a problem for them). -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- Signal_11 I'm trying to grow sentient molds to karma whore on slashdot. -- seen on #kuro5hin --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
I think it's clear from this discussion that we *don't* have any consensus on how best to tag relations for bannered routes. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's clear from this discussion that we *don't* have any consensus
on how best to tag relations for bannered routes.
... yet. Hence why it's important to have the discussion.
After more thought, in the general case, deprecating modifier and just
using network to denote variations using the established : separator
convention is probably sanest. As Phil points out, while no solution
is ideal, the only pitfalls with
* network=US:US:Business, ref=50
are hypothetical; AFIAK there is no data consumer other than the
shield rendering project at the moment anyway, and this solution has
the best potential of alerting the consumer with a I don't understand
this input - modifier is too easy to overlook and requires
multilayered logic and overloading ref produces freeform that needs
parsing.
For example: Pythonish pseudocode parser using just network and ref:
shield_content = relation.ref
switch relation.network:
case US:US: shield_design = 'US.svg'; break
case US:US:Business: shield_design = 'US_business.svg'; break
...
otherwise: printf('network tag %s unrecognized', relation.network)
end switch
shield = render_shield(shield_design, shield_content)
pseudocode parser that needs modifier too:
shield_content = relation.ref
switch relation.network:
case US:US:
switch relation.modifier:
case Business: shield_design = 'US_business.svg'; break
...
case NULL: shield_design = US.svg; break
otherwise: printf('modifier tag %s unrecognized for %s\n',
relation.modifier, relation.network)
end switch
...
otherwise: printf('network tag %s unrecognized\n', relation.network)
end switch
shield = render_shield(shield_design, shield_content)
pseudocode parser that has to figure things out from the ref tag:
if ' ' in relation.ref: // Hope they remembered the space!
ref = relation.ref.split(' ')[0]
suffix = relation.ref.split(' ')[1]
else:
ref = relation.ref
suffix = NULL
switch relation.network:
case US:US:
switch suffix:
case Business: shield_design = 'US_business.svg'; break
...
case NULL: shield_design = US.svg; break
otherwise: printf('suffix %s unrecognized for %s\n', suffix,
relation.network)
end switch
...
otherwise: printf('network tag %s unrecognized\n', relation.network)
end switch
shield = render_shield(shield_design, shield_content)
The code for just using network and ref is far simpler. The tagging
may not be aesthetically perfect but relations are non-newbie-friendly
almost by definition, so any tagging solution for this problem is
going to require mappers to learn the tagging style anyway.
Chris
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com: It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate? No, because, where shield designs differ by agency for the same logical network classification, the network tag does not change, despite the differing shields. One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch. The renderer would have to detect which agency the road is in, and render the agency-specific shield accordingly. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/4/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Hinners wrote: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate? No, because, where shield designs differ by agency for the same logical network classification, the network tag does not change, despite the differing shields. One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch. The renderer would have to detect which agency the road is in, and render the agency-specific shield accordingly. So your belief is that there is such a thing as a U.S. Highway Business network, despite AASHTO considering business routes to be part of the main U.S. Highway network? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/4/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Hinners wrote: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate? No, because, where shield designs differ by agency for the same logical network classification, the network tag does not change, despite the differing shields. One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch. The renderer would have to detect which agency the road is in, and render the agency-specific shield accordingly. So your belief is that there is such a thing as a U.S. Highway Business network, despite AASHTO considering business routes to be part of the main U.S. Highway network? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us You just answered your own question. The business routes are part of the main U.S. highway network, rather than making up a separate U.S. Highway Business network. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/4/2012 12:14 PM, Craig Hinners wrote: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com: It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate? No, because, where shield designs differ by agency for the same logical network classification, the network tag does not change, despite the differing shields. One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch. The renderer would have to detect which agency the road is in, and render the agency-specific shield accordingly. Why not network=US:US:Business:MD ? :-) So your belief is that there is such a thing as a U.S. Highway Business network, despite AASHTO considering business routes to be part of the main U.S. Highway network? Who cares about AASHTO? When did they become the bosses of OSM ? Sure we're free to consider their opinions but doing so at the expense of OSM is stupid. I've seen the network tag, from the start as a way to describe the sign with increasing specificity and an opportunity to gracefully fall back to a reasonable default. So if I'm not rendering the green-variant US:US:Business:MD I can fall back to US:US:Business, or even to US:US. Does one renderer or another want to do something smart with other local variants? If it's tagged, they can. Our North American highway signs inspired no interest from our European cousins so this solution is entirely ours. Overloading highway with modifier=business, truck=yes,loop=yes, alt=yes, or whatever, just seems silly. To describe a single, awesome sign. By analogy, you could map a business by placing a node: amenity=fuel. Or by tracing a building=yes, amenity=fuel. Same thing: you want a generic lozenge shield? ref=123 You want a right, clustered shield? network=US:US:Business:MD, ref=123 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/4/2012 1:05 PM, Richard Weait wrote: By analogy, you could map a business by placing a node: amenity=fuel. Or by tracing a building=yes, amenity=fuel. Same thing: you want a generic lozenge shield? ref=123 You want a right, clustered shield? network=US:US:Business:MD, ref=123 And you'd specify the type of fuel using a different tag, not amenity=fuel:diesel. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: And you'd specify the type of fuel using a different tag, not amenity=fuel:diesel. name= would be a separate tag, so would fuel. Don't choke on the bones. Enjoy the chicken. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/4/2012 1:38 PM, Richard Weait wrote: On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: And you'd specify the type of fuel using a different tag, not amenity=fuel:diesel. name= would be a separate tag, so would fuel. Indeed. How this is a valid analogy for cramming non-network details into the network tag, I don't know. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2012-04-04 11:54 -0400]: It seems that many people see the network tag as not representing a network but a shield design. Does this sound accurate? That matches my sense of what people have said about the tagging. I've been thinking of them in terms of subsets of a larger network, but since the subset is largely determined by how it's signed, it amounts to the same thing. * Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.com [2012-04-04 09:14 -0700]: One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch. It seems to me that network=US:US:Business:MD is the logical extension of a scheme that has US:US and US:US:Business. I had actually planned on attaching Maryland's US Business shields to the US:US:Business:MD network once I made them, but I haven't gotten to those yet. -- ...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/ PGP: 026A27F2 print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248 9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2 --- -- vees my htaccess ban finger is twitching -- seen on #umbclinux --- -- ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote: * Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.com [2012-04-04 09:14 -0700]: One of many examples: Maryland uses a unique green-on-white shield for US Business routes, but those roads still get tagged as network=US:US:Business, not network=US:US:Business:MD or somesuch. It seems to me that network=US:US:Business:MD is the logical extension of a scheme that has US:US and US:US:Business. I had actually planned on attaching Maryland's US Business shields to the US:US:Business:MD network once I made them, but I haven't gotten to those yet. Personally (and you can take my thoughts here with a grain of salt) my original thinking was (whether clearly communicated or not): network=* should represent a broad shield type, roughly corresponding with the core sign design in question (which is largely universal, in the sense that all numbered routes are part of some network - N routes in France or Ireland, federal highways in Mexico, whatever) ref=* what varies on the shield itself between routes in the same network (maybe the number/designation... maybe the number with a suffix, like bis in several European countries). modifier=* would represent MUTCD-type banners attached to the shield (which are largely a North American thing - in retrospect I probably should have just called it banner) and/or weird stuff like Georgia's CONN. that you need to distinguish but would look silly at the same size as the ref. That said it may be easier to combine modifiers/banners into the network as subtypes. Renderers can fallback to the longest left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't understand. Whatever folks want to do (including modifier - banner) would be fine with me; it's not like there are thousands of relations that would need to be changed to the consensus that emerges. As far as non-AASHTO stuff like US 70A (which I'm pretty sure AASHTO considers Alternate US 70), my gut feeling is to tag how it's signed in the field even if it's not technically correct - e.g. network=US:US, ref=70A - as long as we're talking about single-letter suffixes. I still haven't really thought through what to do about Arkansas' irritating redundant signing style (Truck AR 7T), although there again field signing (ref=7T, network=US:AR:Truck or ref=7T, network=US:AR, modifier=Truck) is probably less likely to result in data consumer confusion based on naive rendering than doing something technically correct - presumably at some point AR 7 and Truck AR 7T intersect, so you'd want the map or your GPS app to distinguish clearly which one is which. Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On 4/4/2012 2:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Renderers can fallback to the longest left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't understand. Bad idea. Google Maps does something like this and it results in 'bannered' routes appearing without banners. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/4/2012 2:43 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: Renderers can fallback to the longest left-anchored substring they understand for weird things they don't understand. Bad idea. Google Maps does something like this and it results in 'bannered' routes appearing without banners. Meh. I was mostly referring to weird stuff like US:TX:FM:Business or US:US:Business:MD. To me, US:US:Business:MD falling back on US:US:Business is fine. Tagwatch processes should catch common cases like US:US:Alternate and US:US:Business and ensure they get rendered correctly. Besides, if we slapped the info in the ref tag, our naive data consumers would just render a foot-wide shield with 460 Business in it. Or break at the space and do the exact thing Google's doing with bannered routes already. Stupid data consumers are stupid data consumers; there's no technical solution for it. Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Network tag Re: Highway Shield Rendering
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote: Meh. I was mostly referring to weird stuff like US:TX:FM:Business or US:US:Business:MD. To me, US:US:Business:MD falling back on US:US:Business is fine. Tagwatch processes should catch common cases like US:US:Alternate and US:US:Business and ensure they get rendered correctly. OK, I'll bite. How is putting banners in the network tag preferential? why not something like... network=US:TX:FM modifier=Business network=US:US modifier=Business is_in=Maryland ...instead? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
