Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links (Kevin Kenny)

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

So many conversations at once; this list-digest medium proves limiting at 
times, even often.

Helpful old-fashioned aids here might be sketch boards where small-group (two, 
three people?) sub-projects can spin out and a main thread group where someone 
explains what s/he sees going on and how we might all get on the same page, 
making (actually or the equivalent of) a two- or three-page (at most?) wiki / 
OSM structure with two or three graphics of stacks of things, where this stack 
differs from that stack, where technical boundaries make divergences among 
real-world data consumers and a shortest path to "let's help each other out to 
learn how to make this very difficult bubble gum chewable by everybody around 
here who needs to."  Yes, that's a rather tall order yet we can get there.  
Otherwise I might conclude we have some communication difficulties we'll need 
to solve sooner.  We have pieces of this scattered among us in stovepipes.  
That's all, it isn't terrible, it is solvable.

OSM stacks and data consumers (especially over time, years, as projects evolve, 
needs change, specification revise, tagging syntax meets renderer and "changing 
taste among data consumers is both well anticipated and poorly anticipated."  
These are highly complex. the system is a global mapping project among millions 
of us for billions of us, it is largely volunteer and partly "on a shoestring 
and even amongst ourselves we don't always share data and process in our 
stovepipes without a certain reticence .  There is such a thing as intellectual 
property, trade secrets and what we are talking about doing, process 
improvement, pays truly huge dividends for our future.

Let's be the best project we can be.  We're a lot of very smart people.  We can 
solve in weeks or months or a year what it might have taken us ten years (or 
15) to get to "about here."  I'd say we're doing fine, even as we do have some 
climbing ahead.  OK, I'm fine with that.  I'm being a bit rough and fast here, 
no doubt this will morph.  Good.

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 3:46 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty  wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
>> > now.  Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations.  Osmand is rendering
>> > refs from relations.  Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations.
>> > Pretty sure Mapbox and Rand McNally are as well.
>> "don't tag for the renderer" - but we lose sight of the fact that there
>> are
>> multiple renderers, and non-renderer data consumers on top of that.
>>
>
> And?
>
> It's been obvious for about a decade now that this exact thing was going
> to happen, let's make it happen already.
>

I'm trying to do *my* part, with a worked example of *how* to render
shields from route relations, what needs to happen with the front
(OSM->database) end of the render stack (or a data analysis stack, for that
matter), why my example of that will not scale to a planet with minutely
diffs, and a sketch of how to fix that.

That's why my discussion brings on TL;DR. It gets a bit (no, a lot!) bogged
down in the PostGIS details, but details are important.

As I said, I'm still having technical difficulties with mailing to
tile-serving, so thus far Senpai has not noticed me.

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty  wrote:

> On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
> > now.  Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations.  Osmand is rendering
> > refs from relations.  Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations.
> > Pretty sure Mapbox and Rand McNally are as well.
> "don't tag for the renderer" - but we lose sight of the fact that there are
> multiple renderers, and non-renderer data consumers on top of that.
>

And?

It's been obvious for about a decade now that this exact thing was going to
happen, let's make it happen already.

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[OSM Volunteer stevea]

On Aug 24, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:
> Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer 
> will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to 
> expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways.

Evin, we agree to disagree about "practicality."  Defects can be so severe that 
workarounds cease as solutions.  If/as more data entry which tags for the 
renderer STOPS (no more bandages), and the real wound is seen for what it is (a 
problem that must be fixed), a much stronger incentive to fix exists.  We are 
not there now because of all the bandages, though we may get there if data 
entry more fully embraces "don't code for the renderer:"  shields don't get 
rendered properly, routing seems to (or does) fail, etc.  Either way (we can't 
have it both ways), the ONLY eventual solution is to fix what's broken.  Mihai 
broached the topic, again (thank you), here we are.

It seems "until then" is good enough for some people.  As I can only speak for 
myself, I say "not good enough for me."  Identifying defects is an absolutely 
critical process in any software endeavor, OSM included.  And, as this is a 
specific/localized problem, I wish to build stronger methodologies in OSM for 
our ability to identify/recognize ANY problem in our data-to-render pipelines, 
while being supported by our community in our quest to fix them.  My annoyance 
IS at the renderer itself.  "Push for it to get fixed" is exactly what this is.

As crucial "render stack coders" (right on, Martijn!), are clearly a critical 
OSM resource, they can't be expected to service every single problem, so we 
have what has evolved.  But, we must prioritize.  This is correct:  some 
defects are purely cosmetic, some are high-priority.  There is a rich spectrum 
of multi-dimensional methods to measure (and hence prioritize) software 
defects.  However, "pretending away" with "it's impractical" and "don't code 
for the renderer" must be identified as what they are:  dancing/hand-waving to 
buy some time until the demand (to fix defects) catches up with the 
supply/reality of them actually getting fixed.  OSM simply must get better at 
this.  I may not know exactly how today, but decades of improving exactly this 
process at major software companies tells me that's what this is and that's 
what we must do.  The process remains opaque quite likely deliberately to 
"obfuscate away" demands on critical resources.  Let's open that up, please; 
Open is our first name.

> I do agree with not tagging for the renderer, but I was merely pointing out 
> that it's impractical to expect EVERYONE to follow it in this case until the 
> renderer is fixed.

To make my point clearly:  calling it "impractical" prolongs the problem by 
winking and nodding at slapping bandages on a wound.  The "short-term bandage 
window" is or should be closed by now.  Paul Johnson is right:  dinosaurs like 
ten-year old bugs ought to be fixed.  If you want to say "it's impractical to 
expect..." you can.  I am saying "let's be practical by fixing what is broken." 
 That's what works.

Really, this is a much wider conversation, as you (Evin) identify about 
Washington state route shields and Kevin Kenny's recent "resurrection" of 
similar topics.  Yes, the data-to-render pipelines can be complex; I 
acknowledge that, this is a fundamental "tall mountain" of OSM.  But I continue 
to say "fix bugs, don't bandage them" (rather than wink or say "that's 
impractical").  Andy's awesome work to streamline mapnik into Carto is an 
excellent example of this tenet:  our project will either learn how to fix 
complexities in renderers (often by simplification of the codebase), or we will 
self-destruct in endless discussions like this.  I'd much rather take what is 
known to be a proven successful path.  So, let's improve our render-defect 
fixing pipeline, as it is rather broken.  No judgement there, rather 
identification of problems needing fixing.  We've done it before, we'll do it 
again, only better.

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Richard Welty]

On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
> now.  Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations.  Osmand is rendering
> refs from relations.  Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations. 
> Pretty sure Mapbox and Rand McNally are as well.
"don't tag for the renderer" - but we lose sight of the fact that there are
multiple renderers, and non-renderer data consumers on top of that.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 13:41 Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't agree with tagging the ref tags on
> link roads, as long as it's part of the route relation. I have seen
> instances, though, where people tag what should be a motorway link as a
> motorway when a route exits off a freeway to get the route number to
> render, and I'm not exactly fond of that practice.
>

There are some arguable situations of motorways diverging without a link,
but yeah, currently at least the standard renderer doesn't bother with ref
on link to begin with right now (though I remember it did back before
carto).

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Paul Johnson]

This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while now.
Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations.  Osmand is rendering refs from
relations.  Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations.  Pretty sure
Mapbox and Rand McNally are as well.

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 12:03 Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and only
> put them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags from
> relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so it's impractical for people to
> do what you're suggesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, don't tag for the
> renderer, but I'd you don't have route numbers show up at all, them this
> really reduces the usability of the map. It's such an important thing that
> there's no way you can get people to stop putting the reg tags on ways
> unless the renderer rendered the ref tags for the whole relation.
>
> -Evin (compdude)
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 9:56 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a
>> part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can
>> be used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable.
>>
>> Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already?  Route relations have
>> been a widely accepted thing for a decade now, if you're not using route
>> relations for your primary source of route information (instead of
>> expecting tags on some other non route object to tell you), then you're
>> doing it wrong and you don't matter.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 07:38 Mihai Iepure 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey everyone!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’re looking for your opinion on the existence of ref tags on links –
>>> should it be there? Is it redundant if the link is already in a route
>>> relation that has the ref tag?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We’ve created a Github ticket
>>>  to
>>> let us know what you think, so feel free to post your thoughts there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mihai Iepure
>>> Map Analyst
>>>
>>> [image: Description: cid:image002.png@01CCCAE5.664FA940]
>>>
>>> www.telenav.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Evin Fairchild]

Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer
will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to
expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways. I do agree with
not tagging for the renderer, but I was merely pointing out that it's
impractical to expect EVERYONE to follow it in this case until the renderer
is fixed.

There's always gonna be people who will be like "I want to see the route
numbers so I'm just gonna circumvent tagging convention and tag the ref
tags on the ways instead of just the relation." As an example, I remember
back before Andy Allan created Carto, the code for the Mapnik stylesheet
was super complex and so there were a lot of bugs that took forever to get
fixed, including one where river names were not being displayed, so people
would tag rivers as streams to get the name to show up, even though that's
tagging for the renderer. I never fixed those things as I could totally
understand why people would do that and expecting people to follow the
"don't tag for the renderer" rule in that case is overly legalistic.
Instead of being annoyed that people tag for the renderer, turn your
annoyance at the renderer itself and push for it to get fixed or help fix
it if you have the expertise.

Hopefully we can get actual route shields implemented too. That's what got
me to create route relations for all of WA's state routes several years ago
when Phil Gold was working on making the shields. OSM would look awesome in
the US if we had those route shields!

Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't agree with tagging the ref tags on
link roads, as long as it's part of the route relation. I have seen
instances, though, where people tag what should be a motorway link as a
motorway when a route exits off a freeway to get the route number to
render, and I'm not exactly fond of that practice.

-Evin (compdude)

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 10:57 AM OSM Volunteer stevea <
stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:

> > Evin Fairchild  wrote
> > The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and
> only put them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags
> from relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so
>
> All good and correct so far...
>
> > it's impractical for people to do what you're suggesting.
>
> By "you" Evin means Paul Johnson and by "do what you're suggesting" —
> eliminating ref=* tags on ways — (as they are 100% redundant if the way is
> part of the appropriate route relations) Paul's suggestion is excellent.
> It is correct, not impractical.
>
> Continuing to put ref=* tags on ways is called a "workaround."  Like a
> bandage on a wound, workarounds can be decent short-term solutions, but the
> real healing which OSM must complete is for renderers to respect route
> relation tags.  All else is folly.
>
> > Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, don't tag for the renderer,
>
> OSM's tenet of "don't tag for the renderer" is something I respect.  Yet
> (especially in this case) it has qualities of "magical thinking" whereby
> the wound is artificially babied along by pretending away that the real
> work renderers must (MUST!) do is to fully respect long-established data
> structures renderers purport to represent.  If that is hard work
> (evidently, it is), well, let's roll up our sleeves and code (FIX!) our
> renderers so they properly visually represent our data.
>
> Babying along wounds, pretending away and magical thinking are elements of
> sad, broken, amateurish projects:  they'll "get you through the night," and
> for too long in OSM, they have.  But as OSM matures into a happy, working,
> professional-grade project (we have, we do) that simply doesn't cut it any
> longer.  Someone has to say this — again and again, apparently — until the
> real solution of "this is hard work, but we must do it" is completed.
>
> > but I'd you don't have route numbers show up at all, them this really
> reduces the usability of the map.
>
> What a fantastic incentive to fix renderers:  evidence of "tag like we say
> we should tag" means "hm, renderers don't respect that!"  We can no longer
> say "don't code for the renderer," wink at those who do and continue to say
> and do this while "rendering incompletely."  It is disingenuous and shows
> that something is fundamentally broken in our project.  We MUST fix
> renderers or we DESERVE monikers of "sad, broken, amateurish."
>
> > It's such an important thing that there's no way you can get people to
> stop putting the reg tags on ways unless the renderer rendered the ref tags
> for the whole relation.
>
> It is circular logic (explained) and circular logic is broken.  We must
> fix our renderers so they fully respect our well-established data
> structures.  No longer can we be told "don't pay attention to that man
> behind the curtain" while winking and workarounds fight each other for
> dominance:  OSM loses (big time) in the long-run as we continue to fool
> ourselves with the folly of these 

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Martijn van Exel]

Agree with that, Evin. Unfortunately I think there are still quite a few 
countries where route relations are not as widely used / accepted (I remember 
the UK bring among them? Perhaps someone can do an overpass query to visualize) 
so unless we get everyone on board with them we're likely stuck with 
redundancy. 

Martijn

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 24, 2018, at 12:02, Evin Fairchild  wrote:
> 
> The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and only put 
> them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags from 
> relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so it's impractical for people to do 
> what you're suggesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, don't tag for the renderer, 
> but I'd you don't have route numbers show up at all, them this really reduces 
> the usability of the map. It's such an important thing that there's no way 
> you can get people to stop putting the reg tags on ways unless the renderer 
> rendered the ref tags for the whole relation.
> 
> -Evin (compdude)
> 
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 9:56 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a part 
>> of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can be 
>> used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable.
>> 
>> Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already?  Route relations have been 
>> a widely accepted thing for a decade now, if you're not using route 
>> relations for your primary source of route information (instead of expecting 
>> tags on some other non route object to tell you), then you're doing it wrong 
>> and you don't matter.
>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 07:38 Mihai Iepure  wrote:
>>> Hey everyone!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We’re looking for your opinion on the existence of ref tags on links – 
>>> should it be there? Is it redundant if the link is already in a route 
>>> relation that has the ref tag?
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> We’ve created a Github ticket to let us know what you think, so feel free 
>>> to post your thoughts there.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Mihai Iepure
>>> Map Analyst
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> www.telenav.com
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Evin Fairchild]

The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and only
put them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags from
relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so it's impractical for people to
do what you're suggesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, don't tag for the
renderer, but I'd you don't have route numbers show up at all, them this
really reduces the usability of the map. It's such an important thing that
there's no way you can get people to stop putting the reg tags on ways
unless the renderer rendered the ref tags for the whole relation.

-Evin (compdude)

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 9:56 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a
> part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can
> be used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable.
>
> Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already?  Route relations have
> been a widely accepted thing for a decade now, if you're not using route
> relations for your primary source of route information (instead of
> expecting tags on some other non route object to tell you), then you're
> doing it wrong and you don't matter.
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 07:38 Mihai Iepure  wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone!
>>
>>
>>
>> We’re looking for your opinion on the existence of ref tags on links –
>> should it be there? Is it redundant if the link is already in a route
>> relation that has the ref tag?
>>
>>
>>
>> We’ve created a Github ticket
>>  to let
>> us know what you think, so feel free to post your thoughts there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance!
>>
>>
>>
>> Mihai Iepure
>> Map Analyst
>>
>> [image: Description: cid:image002.png@01CCCAE5.664FA940]
>>
>> www.telenav.com
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref=* tags on links

[Paul Johnson]

The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a
part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can
be used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable.

Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already?  Route relations have
been a widely accepted thing for a decade now, if you're not using route
relations for your primary source of route information (instead of
expecting tags on some other non route object to tell you), then you're
doing it wrong and you don't matter.

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 07:38 Mihai Iepure  wrote:

> Hey everyone!
>
>
>
> We’re looking for your opinion on the existence of ref tags on links –
> should it be there? Is it redundant if the link is already in a route
> relation that has the ref tag?
>
>
>
> We’ve created a Github ticket
>  to let
> us know what you think, so feel free to post your thoughts there.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
>
> Mihai Iepure
> Map Analyst
>
> [image: Description: cid:image002.png@01CCCAE5.664FA940]
>
> www.telenav.com
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Phil! Gold]

* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 20:04 -0400]:
 Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a Future 
 I-26 shield:
 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg

Alright.  I'll add Future Interstate shields to my todo list.  Unless
everyone agrees on something else, I'll plan to key them off a tag of
network=US:I:Future .

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

How about...

network=US:I
modifier=Future


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 20:04 -0400]:
  Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a
 Future I-26 shield:
 
 http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg

 Alright.  I'll add Future Interstate shields to my todo list.  Unless
 everyone agrees on something else, I'll plan to key them off a tag of
 network=US:I:Future .

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Phil! Gold]

* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]:
 I do hope that the render will avoid using the Super relations.

My rendering doesn't use super relations (mostly[0]), because it
doesn't need to; the per-state relations contain all of the tags
needed for it to get the right shields.

 the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to
 be a Future Interstate and it is posted as such with FUTURE tabs
 above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word
 Interstate in the shields itself.

Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these
(US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations?  If
there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my
rendering for them.


[0] At lower zoom levels the rendering uses the osm2pgsql route
relation geometries for overview rendering of two-digit Interstate
shields, which might end up using super relations, if osm2pgsql
generates geometries from them, but that's a fairly minor part of
the rendering and only applies from zoom 7 to zoom 9.

-- 
...computer contrarian of the first order... / http://aperiodic.net/phil/
PGP: 026A27F2  print: D200 5BDB FC4B B24A 9248  9F7A 4322 2D22 026A 27F2
--- --
  kceee^ I hate users
knghtbrd you sound like a sysadmin already!
   -- seen on #debian
 --- --

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[James Mast]

 Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:28:12 -0400
 From: phi...@pobox.com
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
 
 * James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]:
 
  the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to
  be a Future Interstate and it is posted as such with FUTURE tabs
  above all I-26 shields on that segment (and missing the word
  Interstate in the shields itself.
 
 Would it be worthwhile to declare a separate network for these
 (US:I:Future seems natural) and give them their own relations?  If
 there are signs on the ground, I could see about putting images in my
 rendering for them.
 
 

 
Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a Future 
I-26 shield:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
 
And here's one for I-74 in NC along the Rockingham US-74 Bypass when I was on 
it a few years ago:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-74/P1030940s.jpg
 
And for quick reference, here's a I-840 from StreetView:
http://goo.gl/maps/K20Hs
 
And a Future I-73/I-840 combo from StreetView:
http://goo.gl/maps/G0qOG
 
It seems that only NC seems to do it this way.  Don't know of any other states 
that post Future Interstates except for those Future I-xx Corridor signs 
(NC does that too on highways that aren't going to be part of a future 
Interstate).
 
-James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
 true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
 as two separate types.
 On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same network
 (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just change
 the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches instead of
 farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road, being RR 1,
 the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more confusing
 aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous distinction
 between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for
 some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.
  Progress has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down
 relations, I'm checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I
 go along.  I've been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a
 state highway I know goes through but things refuse to route down it 
 while
 I'm working, I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as 
 I'm
 doing with OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a
favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or
the cited source?

I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible.
On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
 On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
 true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
 as two separate types.
 On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same
 network (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just
 change the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches
 instead of farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road,
 being RR 1, the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more
 confusing aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous
 distinction between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for
 both, since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel 
 m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for
 some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.
  Progress has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down
 relations, I'm checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as 
 I
 go along.  I've been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a
 state highway I know goes through but things refuse to route down it 
 while
 I'm working, I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as 
 I'm
 doing with OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer
determines which shield to put on the road.

Tagging for the renderer, grumble grumble.
On Jun 20, 2013 9:23 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a
 favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or
 the cited source?

 I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible.
 On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
 On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
 true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
 as two separate types.
 On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same
 network (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just
 change the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches
 instead of farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road,
 being RR 1, the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more
 confusing aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous
 distinction between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them 
 to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for
 both, since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel 
 m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for
 some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.
  Progress has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down
 relations, I'm checking each highway for continuity and connectivity 
 as I
 go along.  I've been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a
 state highway I know goes through but things refuse to route down it 
 while
 I'm working, I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back 
 (as I'm
 doing with OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Phil! Gold]

* Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com [2013-06-20 09:26 -0700]:
 Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
 sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer
 determines which shield to put on the road.

My shield renderer is pretty flexible.  I can assign shields on a
ref-by-ref basis, if need be (though it means that networks' shields
require more maintenance in the long run).[0]  As long as the solution
has local consensus I'll find a way to work with it.[1]

[0] See, for example, Georgia route 515, which gets a blue sign because
it's part of an Appalachian Highway Development System corridor:


http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12lat=34.66561lon=-84.48668layers=B

[1] Or throw up my hands and say, I don't know how to handle that, but
that shouldn't impede consensus.  There are still a bunch of things I
don't have a good way to handle yet, like the way Tennessee does
primary and secondary state highways, or the way Maryland signs
Business US Highways.

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[James Mast]

 
 Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:15:02 -0400
 From: phi...@pobox.com
 To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
 
 * Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com [2013-06-20 09:26 -0700]:
  Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
  sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer
  determines which shield to put on the road.
 
 My shield renderer is pretty flexible.  I can assign shields on a
 ref-by-ref basis, if need be (though it means that networks' shields
 require more maintenance in the long run).[0]  As long as the solution
 has local consensus I'll find a way to work with it.[1]
 
 [0] See, for example, Georgia route 515, which gets a blue sign because
 it's part of an Appalachian Highway Development System corridor:
 
 
 http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=12lat=34.66561lon=-84.48668layers=B
 
 [1] Or throw up my hands and say, I don't know how to handle that, but
 that shouldn't impede consensus.  There are still a bunch of things I
 don't have a good way to handle yet, like the way Tennessee does
 primary and secondary state highways, or the way Maryland signs
 Business US Highways.
 
 ___
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 Well, for the Tennessee State Highways, as long as we can find out which are 
secondary, we could tag them in the relations as US:TN:SR or 
US:TN:Secondary and then use a Super relation to tie together routes that 
have segments with both primary and secondary segments types.  The kicker is 
how to find out which segments are which.  I don't know if TDOT has any GIS 
data out there to download that would be compatible with OSM that would allow 
us to figure out which is which. -James
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm  Texas refers to the network
as Farm/Ranch to Market or Farm to Market, except Ranch Road 1 and NASA
Road 1 (both of which are part of single-route networks, because Texas).
 The last fact I would correct to say currently since Oklahoma formerly
had Farm-to-Market roads, every now and then I find a long-abandoned
farm-to-market reference in the name*=* tags tiger imported in rural
Oklahoma.  The TxDOT's official glossary identify Urban Road, Farm to
Market and Ranch to Market identically, and an Urban Road as an FM/RM
running through an urban area.
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/highway-designation/glossary.html


Using the TxDOT search system, there seems to be a lot of bikeshedding
within the department on request of locals who want a Farm to Market to be
a Ranch to Market or Urban Road or vice-versa-et-cetra and nothing to
suggest that FM/RM/UR are three different networks.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.comwrote:

 I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a
 favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or
 the cited source?

 I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible.
 On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
 On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
 true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
 as two separate types.
 On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same
 network (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just
 change the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches
 instead of farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road,
 being RR 1, the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more
 confusing aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous
 distinction between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them 
 to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for
 both, since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel 
 m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for
 some states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.
  Progress has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down
 relations, I'm checking each highway for continuity and connectivity 
 as I
 go along.  I've been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a
 state highway I know goes through but things refuse to route down it 
 while
 I'm working, I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back 
 (as I'm
 doing with OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Minh Nguyen]

Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
states, there are no State Route relation pages.
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also)

NE2 finished Ohio's route relations at such speed that I gave up updating
our status page. [1] The county route relations haven’t seen much progress
lately, due to a lack of motivation from the shield renderer project. ;-)

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ohio/Route_relations/State_routes

-- 
Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org



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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress has
been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
OK 48 right now).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Toby Murray]

Yeah, I'm guessing interstates and US routes are mostly done. The things
that might be missing is bannered routes (truck, business, etc). I suspect
that state highways are going to be a patchwork. I'm pretty sure I've got
most of the major and a good number of minor Kansas highways done. This
wiki page should fairly accurately reflect reality:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas_state_highways

Toby



On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation
 completeness in the US? Looking at

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations

 This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving
 like that.
 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours.
 Enjoying it a lot!


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
  Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would
 need to
  be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM
 MDT)
  would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

 That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
 going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
 (Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I
 won't
 be available until Saturday sometime.)

 ___
 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/




 --
 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] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

Curious if you guys are using US:KS for the network, which would fit the
pattern or not?  I ask because on the way's ref tags, some people are
correctly using KS, but others are just using K.


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:


 Yeah, I'm guessing interstates and US routes are mostly done. The things
 that might be missing is bannered routes (truck, business, etc). I suspect
 that state highways are going to be a patchwork. I'm pretty sure I've got
 most of the major and a good number of minor Kansas highways done. This
 wiki page should fairly accurately reflect reality:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas_state_highways

 Toby



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation
 completeness in the US? Looking at


 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations

 This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving
 like that.
 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours.
 Enjoying it a lot!


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
  Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would
 need to
  be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM
 MDT)
  would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

 That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
 going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
 (Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I
 won't
 be available until Saturday sometime.)

 ___
 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/




 --
 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] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Following up on this  as a reminder, let's get together at 5PM Pacific /
8PM Eastern to see how we can make this happen. Again, I am willing to put
in time, but I will need help. I prefer a Google hangout but IRC works for
me as well.


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need
 to be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
 would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.comwrote:


 I did spend some time trying to set up Phil's code myself for eventual
 deployment to the osm-us server. I got a good chunk of the way there but
 ran into some problems. I'll see if I can put some more time into it now
 that I'm home again.

 Toby


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders
 shields and concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code
 has been working for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running
 for years before that.

 Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a stamp of approval for
 a local mapping idiom.

 If shields and concurrencies are important to you then why aren't you
 using the available tools?

 Argh!  :-)
 ___
 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/




-- 
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] ref tags

[Toby Murray]

Yes, the relations are all tagged correctly with network=US:KS. As for the
ref on the ways, anything I've touched is KS. There was another user who
did a bunch as K-xx for a while but I think I convinced him that we should
go with KS and put K-xx in a loc_ref tag or something like that.

Toby


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if you guys are using US:KS for the network, which would fit the
 pattern or not?  I ask because on the way's ref tags, some people are
 correctly using KS, but others are just using K.


 On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.comwrote:


 Yeah, I'm guessing interstates and US routes are mostly done. The things
 that might be missing is bannered routes (truck, business, etc). I suspect
 that state highways are going to be a patchwork. I'm pretty sure I've got
 most of the major and a good number of minor Kansas highways done. This
 wiki page should fairly accurately reflect reality:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas_state_highways

 Toby



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation
 completeness in the US? Looking at


 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations

 This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving
 like that.
 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours.
 Enjoying it a lot!


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
  Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would
 need to
  be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM
 MDT)
  would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

 That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
 going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
 (Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I
 won't
 be available until Saturday sometime.)

 ___
 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/




 --
 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] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Wondering if there may be a better way to collaborate on route maintenance,
a way to see if routes are being maintained / created per area, and by
whom... Oh wait, that would be the groups feature we are working on[1].

[1] https://github.com/osmlab/datadashboard/issues/1 and
https://github.com/osmlab/openstreetmap-website/tree/groups-sketch


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:17 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if you guys are using US:KS for the network, which would fit the
 pattern or not?  I ask because on the way's ref tags, some people are
 correctly using KS, but others are just using K.


 On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.comwrote:


 Yeah, I'm guessing interstates and US routes are mostly done. The things
 that might be missing is bannered routes (truck, business, etc). I suspect
 that state highways are going to be a patchwork. I'm pretty sure I've got
 most of the major and a good number of minor Kansas highways done. This
 wiki page should fairly accurately reflect reality:

 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Kansas_state_highways

 Toby



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation
 completeness in the US? Looking at


 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations

 This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving
 like that.
 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )



 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours.
 Enjoying it a lot!


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
  Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would
 need to
  be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM
 MDT)
  would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

 That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
 going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
 (Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I
 won't
 be available until Saturday sometime.)

 ___
 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/




 --
 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




-- 
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] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads
haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a Mapcraft
to help add relations to them all: http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress has
 been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
since they're both part of the same network.
On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads
 haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a Mapcraft
 to help add relations to them all: http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
 more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Eric Theise]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 Following up on this  as a reminder, let's get together at 5PM Pacific /
 8PM Eastern to see how we can make this happen. Again, I am willing to put
 in time, but I will need help. I prefer a Google hangout but IRC works for
 me as well.

I'll join in the hangout. Happy to do some work towards this. Anyone
have a sense of which states are in the worst shape?

--Eric

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Jason Straub]

I've been doing a lot of work on the FM and RM roads already.  The RM's should 
all be done already.  The FM roads are done for everything west of I-35, except 
for the Panhandle, where I was just straightening and not adding relations.  
Anything I've worked on Everything is done generally north of I-30 and south 
I-10, and a good section of East Texas.  It's slow and methodical.  Check my 
changesets for examples.  The Interstates, US Routes, and main State highways 
are already done.  My next step after FM's is the FM and RM spurs (!).  I 
haven't been adding anything to the wiki, as I didn't really feel there was a 
need and it increases the workload 10fold.

Jason
user: 25or6to4

Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
since they're both part of the same network.
On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads
 haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a Mapcraft
 to help add relations to them all: http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
 more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be little
to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same purpose, but I
see no need to go through them all and change all of them to one network.
They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
 more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

I'm pretty confident (but with G+ you never know) that this is the event
link:

https://plus.google.com/events/casn33o1v25faad4jvocqdu1jg4

Info on the actual hangout link should appear there shortly before we start.

Martijn


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be little
 to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same purpose, but I
 see no need to go through them all and change all of them to one network.
 They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
  On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same network
(farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just change
the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches instead of
farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road, being RR 1,
the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more confusing
aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous distinction
between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be little
 to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same purpose, but I
 see no need to go through them all and change all of them to one network.
 They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
as two separate types.
On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same network
 (farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number.  They just change
 the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches instead of
 farms.  According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road, being RR 1,
 the rest are farm to market.  It's definitely one of the more confusing
 aspects of the Texas highway system, sort of like the nebulous distinction
 between Park Roads and Rec Roads.
 On Jun 19, 2013 5:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be
 little to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same
 purpose, but I see no need to go through them all and change all of them to
 one network. They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
 On Jun 19, 2013 12:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
 since they're both part of the same network.
 On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM
 roads haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a
 Mapcraft to help add relations to them all:
 http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269

 I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely
 need more people to help out if it's gonna get done.
 On Jun 19, 2013 7:39 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.orgwrote:

 Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
 states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
 )


 I'm working on Oklahoma right now and keeping it documented.  Progress
 has been slow since I'm not satisfied in just slapping down relations, I'm
 checking each highway for continuity and connectivity as I go along.  I've
 been going somewhat sequentially but if I come across a state highway I
 know goes through but things refuse to route down it while I'm working,
 I'll go through and fine-tooth-comb it when I get back (as I'm doing with
 OK 48 right now).

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Richard Weait]

Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields and 
concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been working 
for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for years before 
that.  

Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a stamp of approval for a local 
mapping idiom.  

If shields and concurrencies are important to you then why aren't you using the 
available tools?  

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Ian Dees]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields
 and concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been
 working for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for years
 before that.


Because no one's stepped up to do it!

I've asked several times for ideas and input for what should run on the
server and haven't received much initiative there. Are you volunteering,
Richard? :)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Richard - we were discussing this topic during the mappy hour yesterday and
came to the same conclusion! We should have a shields style. What needs to
be done? I am willing to put in time but can't connect all the dots myself.
I will loop in Ian and see if we can get this running.


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields
 and concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been
 working for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for years
 before that.

 Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a stamp of approval for a
 local mapping idiom.

 If shields and concurrencies are important to you then why aren't you
 using the available tools?

 Argh!  :-)




-- 
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] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Oh there you are Ian :)

Well I guess I am stepping up but I will need help!


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Richard - we were discussing this topic during the mappy hour yesterday
 and came to the same conclusion! We should have a shields style. What needs
 to be done? I am willing to put in time but can't connect all the dots
 myself. I will loop in Ian and see if we can get this running.


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders
 shields and concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code
 has been working for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running
 for years before that.

 Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a stamp of approval for a
 local mapping idiom.

 If shields and concurrencies are important to you then why aren't you
 using the available tools?

 Argh!  :-)




 --
 Martijn van Exel
 http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
 http://openstreetmap.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] ref tags

[Phil! Gold]

* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2013-06-18 08:07 -0500]:
 Because no one's stepped up to do it!

Okay, I should probably put my toes in here.  I can spend this weekend
cleaning up my code (for http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ ) and maybe
try to get it running on the US server, if there's interest/approval.
Note that it requires PL/python, which is an untrusted PostgreSQL
language, and takes some tweaking to get all of the pathnames set up
properly.

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Phil! Gold]

* Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com [2013-06-17 22:19 -0400]:
 If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
 not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way.

Note that the conventions for ref tags are different for relations and
ways.  A way that is tagged ref=I 70 should be a member of a relation
that is tagged network=US:I, ref=70.  (And a relation tagged
network=US:US:Business, ref=15, modifier=Business would correspond to a
way tagged ref=US 15 Business.)  This sort of adaptation might be a good
candidate for the Lua transformations recently added to osm2pgsql, but I
haven't had a chance to really look at those yet.

(Also, of course, such ref projection would need to take concurrencies
into account.  Sigh.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Toby Murray]

I did spend some time trying to set up Phil's code myself for eventual
deployment to the osm-us server. I got a good chunk of the way there but
ran into some problems. I'll see if I can put some more time into it now
that I'm home again.

Toby


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields
 and concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been
 working for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for years
 before that.

 Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a stamp of approval for a
 local mapping idiom.

 If shields and concurrencies are important to you then why aren't you
 using the available tools?

 Argh!  :-)
 ___
 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] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to
be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:


 I did spend some time trying to set up Phil's code myself for eventual
 deployment to the osm-us server. I got a good chunk of the way there but
 ran into some problems. I'll see if I can put some more time into it now
 that I'm home again.

 Toby


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:

 Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders
 shields and concurrencies?  The tagging has been stable forever. The code
 has been working for years.  Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running
 for years before that.

 Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a stamp of approval for a
 local mapping idiom.

 If shields and concurrencies are important to you then why aren't you
 using the available tools?

 Argh!  :-)
 ___
 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] ref tags

[Phil! Gold]

* Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
 Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to
 be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
 would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
(Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I won't
be available until Saturday sometime.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours. Enjoying
it a lot!


On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
  Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need
 to
  be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
  would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

 That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
 going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
 (Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I won't
 be available until Saturday sometime.)

 ___
 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] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation completeness
in the US? Looking at

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations

This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving like
that.
Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
)



On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:

 Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours. Enjoying
 it a lot!


 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:

 * Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
  Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would
 need to
  be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
  would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?

 That's 8pm for me, which might work.  Depending on other stuff I have
 going on that evening, I might not be available until 8:30 or so (EDT).
 (Wednesday's my only free evening this week, so if it doesn't work I won't
 be available until Saturday sometime.)

 ___
 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/




-- 
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] ref tags

[Mike N]

On 6/18/2013 1:21 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:

This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving
like that.
Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
states, there are no State Route relation pages.
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also)


 I think in the case of South Carolina, state routes are complete but 
not entered in the Wiki.


  (PS, most of the work was done a while ago by someone who was excited 
about route shields and the prospect of having them on a tile server 
somewhere)



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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If
the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its
in a relation or not.

Would that break anybody?

Thanks
Jason.


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
 Because, as I understand it, route relations are not used as extensively in
 some regions / countries as they are here in the U.S. and we cannot impose
 this reliance on relationships for numbered route relations on everyone.
 Perhaps if we make it a switch / option in osm2pgsql so folks can choose
 based on their local situation?


 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Why not just patch osm2pgsql? It seems like the right place for this
 is on the relation.

 On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
  Hi all,
 
  I wanted to get an opinion on the right place for 'ref' tags on numbered
  routes.
 
  From what I understand, osm2pgsql and the downstream rendering process
  uses
  the ref tags on the way object to render highway 'shields'.
 
  The following example corroborates this. Consider this (long) way:
 
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13649057
 
  See how this segment has no 'shields' on the map because the way itself
  has
  no ref tag:
 
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.5419lon=-89.4744zoom=13layers=M
 
  Even though the way is part of the properly tagged relation
 
  http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23246
 
  I see two issues here:
 
  1) Information already present in the relation object being duplicated
  on
  the way to satisfy the renderer
  2) Incomplete coverage of ref information on ways
 
  I don't think we can solve 1) in the short term. There are likely many,
  many
  numbered route networks in the world that are poorly covered by
  relations,
  because the renderer does not encourage it, because relations were
  introduced after a lot of numbered routes were already tagged before the
  arrival of relations, because the wiki is ambiguous, perhaps other
  reasons.
 
  There are perhaps a few thousand ways in the U.S. that are part of a
  numbered route, yet do not have ref tags on the way. My question is: how
  should we deal with these?
 
  My proposal is to 'fill the gaps' by manually tagging these ways using
  the
  existing conventions for route relation ref tagging ('US 98', 'I 20',
  'MS
  467', etc.) wherever this information can be derived from an existing
  route
  relation. We have folks here at Telenav willing to spend some cycles on
  this, but I want to see if this is a sane approach before we do
  anything.
  --
  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
 




 --
 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] ref tags

[Richard Welty]

On 6/17/13 10:19 PM, Jason Remillard wrote:

Hi,

If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If
the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its
in a relation or not.

Would that break anybody?


it's an ok temporary expedient.

ref tags on ways are erratic in the US, and in the long term we should
move to full use of relations and removal of ref tags from ways. that will
take quite a while, but it should be the goal state.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

Kind of looking forward to that, too, since it would allow more accurately
mapping situations like Oregon, where State Highways are the original
numbers used on trailblazers and what ODOT refers to roads it's roadways
as, as opposed to the State Routes that usually traverse multiple state
highways.  Granted, some of these coincide, largely with the state highways
and state routes adopted in the last 2 decades, such as SR 120/SH 120.
 Others are a bit more murky.  For example, SH 1/1C/1W/1E coincide with
varying parts of Interstate 5, various ocean beaches open to driving that
have not been assigned a state route but are part of the highway system, SR
99W, SR 99E, SR 99 and more...


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:

 On 6/17/13 10:19 PM, Jason Remillard wrote:

 Hi,

 If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
 not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If
 the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its
 in a relation or not.

 Would that break anybody?

  it's an ok temporary expedient.

 ref tags on ways are erratic in the US, and in the long term we should
 move to full use of relations and removal of ref tags from ways. that will
 take quite a while, but it should be the goal state.

 richard



 __**_
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[stevea]

Thank you, Paul:  not only do I stand corrected, I am glad to be 
corrected (improved, really) in this way.  (I did know, in fact, the 
number to be greater than fifty something.)  I only planted the 
seed, and you more fully grew the tree of this particular truth.  I, 
too, am not sure of a more accurate number, only that it is somewhere 
between fifty something and 200+.


Native reservations still seem to be a not-completely-settled issue 
as to admin_level value, I do wish the OSM community could reach more 
harmonious agreement here.  Discussions like this, which really only 
scratch surfaces, are a good start.


I see persuasive arguments for either admin_level=1 (for the 
US-Canada border stragglers?) or 3 for most or all of these regions. 
Perhaps an OSM wiki discussion can be started, continued or 
resurrected.  Or maybe a new thread.  A new thread should change 
Subject away from ref tags.  Also, talk-us may or may not be a 
correct forum for this discussion.


I did recently (Volume 62, Issue 1) start a discussion in talk-us 
about admin_level which turned into contributions in the wiki page 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_admin_level, which 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Minh_Nguyen cleaned up by 
drawing off further discussion to 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_admin_level#admin_level.3D5_proposal 
(thank you Minh).  That (or a new section in it) may be an 
appropriate place to continue a discussion of native reservations in 
the US being assigned an admin_level of 1, 3 or some other value.  Or 
even something else we may agree to do.


SteveA
California


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM, stevea 
mailto:stevea...@softworkers.comstevea...@softworkers.com wrote:


In other words, New York is just as sovereign as is New Zealand, 
South Dakota is as much a nation-state as South Korea.  I am not an 
attorney, but I can read.  This makes for 51 independent 
jurisdictions:  the fifty states and the United States at a federal 
level.  (There might be fifty-something independent jurisdictions 
if we include DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands... 
but all of those extras are really separate areas of the single 
federal state).  The latter (the federal USA) is, legally 
speaking, absolutely distinct from each of the former (the sovereign 
fifty states).  Let OSM properly reflect that.



More like 200+, actually.  Indian nations are usually above the 
state level, below the US level, with a few exceptions that stand 
independent straddling the US/Canada border.  These aren't mapped 
yet, mostly because suggestions to use administrative boundary 
levels 3 and 1 as default levels most tribes and the border 
stragglers have either gone ignored or shot down.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Nathan Mills]

On 2/13/2013 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


Considering that there's nearly 40 in the area within relation 161645 
(Oklahoma), I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't at least 
50-something just within states starting with O.




AFAIK, all of the reservations in Oklahoma were allotted before 
statehood. There is, obviously, some land that has been taken into trust 
by BIA for the casinos. Osage County is the closest thing we have to a 
reservation, but even there only mineral rights are fully native owned. 
There are tribal governments here, but no reservations.


-Nathan

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

Not reservations as such, but there are tribal boundaries that last to this
day.  Osage County/Nation isn't the only one.  Heck, just drive around
Tulsa, and you'll see Entering the Cherokee/Muscogee (Creek)/Osage Nation
signs bisecting the city into thirds centered roughly at the
244/412/51/LL/64 (and there's probably 546732469 other refs I'm omitting)
interchange in downtown.  Several smaller nations are in the
Kansas/Missouri corner.  The Choctaw Nation dominates the Ouachitas.  And
yeah, the Osage got truly hosed...


On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net wrote:

 On 2/13/2013 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:


 Considering that there's nearly 40 in the area within relation 161645
 (Oklahoma), I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't at least 50-something
 just within states starting with O.


 AFAIK, all of the reservations in Oklahoma were allotted before statehood.
 There is, obviously, some land that has been taken into trust by BIA for
 the casinos. Osage County is the closest thing we have to a reservation,
 but even there only mineral rights are fully native owned. There are tribal
 governments here, but no reservations.

 -Nathan


 __**_
 Talk-us mailing list
 Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk-ushttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2013-02-11 11:30 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote:

I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags
to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state
prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long
modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match.
Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state
shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might
also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help.
Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the
relations, like on the shield renderer at
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper
directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood
route relations) but baby steps.

The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in
Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's
insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a
visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to
render.  But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the
bare number and SR plague has set in.


The SR 123 format has been the consensus in Ohio for years. Forget 
NE2; you'll have to change the local mappers' minds first. We arrived at 
this choice not only because US:OH 123 (the wiki's suggestion 
originally) was too long for Mapnik in most cases, but also because SR 
123 is the predominant abbreviation format on plain-text signage 
(variable message signs, the occasional blade sign) and in writing 
(traffic reports, state documents, ODOT schematics, county engineers' 
websites, Wikipedia, etc.).


This isn't just an Ohio thing. In the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, blade signs 
at intersections with on-ramps often say SH 123, even where the 
highway is commonly known by a name.


On 2013-02-11 12:30 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
 As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more
 likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that
 have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a
 reference to Florida xx or Florida Highway xx instead of State
 Road xx, even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the
 shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama -
 actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be
 confused by Florida xx than xx - Turn left on 46? 46 what?) -
 after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the
 ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as The 101.

This a poor analogy, because The 101 is a colloquial designation -- it 
belongs in `loc_name`. (Plus, you'd spark an edit war between Northern 
and Southern Californians over the The.) Caltrans, on the other hand, 
tends to use US 101 or less commonly Hwy 101 (which would be just as 
ambiguous as the bare numbers in Florida).


I map where Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana meet. Conforming to official and 
local usage, both Ohio and Indiana use SR 123, while Kentucky uses KY 
123. The usability problem here is the lack of any route shields at 
all, not the presence of dual formats.


To me, an insistence on nationwide consistency would only serve to delay 
adoption of route relations by renderers and routers. It leads data 
consumers to assume that a route network can be determined based solely 
on a prefix in `ref`. But `ref=CA 130` could be California State Route 
130, or it could be Carretera Primaria 130 de Cantabria. [1] The green 
spade shield would seem quite out of place in Spain, no? We should be 
treating the `ref` tag as human-readable, not necessarily 
machine-parsable. That's what route relations are for. Imagine if we 
still insisted on machine-readable `is_in` tags!


[1] http://osm.org/browse/way/4843509

--
Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org
Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Chris Lawrence]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
[...]
 What this means is that ref tags (used at county, state and national levels)
 are and should be human readable, and route relations are a more machine
 parsable data structure for logically assembling together the various
 highway networks -- even where several exist in a single state, like Texas
 -- and assembling from existing infrastructure into larger wholes (at a
 national level, such as the Interstate System).
[...]
  So, let's just assign sensible
 human meaning to ref tags and sensible machine parsable meaning to route
 relation tags.  This combination works to create all of the semantics we
 need for legal accuracy, local/county/state/federal variations, human
 readability, and logical parsability for software which routes or renders
 shields for display.

I largely agree with you (and Minh) that the ideal is for consumers to
move to using the route relations tags, since they are unambiguous
and, at this point, reasonably comprehensive.  The question then
arises: what to do with the existing on-route ref tags... to me there
are a few possibilities:

- Maximize compatibility with existing renderers that use the ref tag
for something more sophisticated than simply rendering the text in a
lozenge.
- Try to cram as much information in the ref tag as Mapnik* can
render, even if that means dropping prefixes (which I guess is where
the bare numbers that showed up in GA and FL came from).
- Apply local conventions, including prefixes like SH and SR,
which may or may not be what is on blade signs or even in common use.
- Put something human readable in that Mapnik* can render, without
sacrificing readability, but omitting less important stuff if we get
too long (for example, dropping the redundant state route overlaps in
Georgia, using popular typographic conventions rather than standard
prefixes, combining route numbers with the same type I-75/85 rather
than I 75; I 85) - which basically where we were before
standardization a few years ago.

Personally I think the way forward may be to figure out editor tools
that will make route relations easier for people to use (maybe this is
as simple as adding some comboboxes to the JOSM tools to help people
find the right things to use for the various tags; I haven't used
Potlatch in years so no idea what needs to be done there, but probably
something similar) and maybe some automated system for detecting the
inevitable duplicates that will crop up.  Then maybe we can deprecate
the way ref tag in the US and find better things to do...


Chris
-- 
Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com

Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:

 In other words, New York is just as sovereign as is New Zealand, South
 Dakota is as much a nation-state as South Korea.  I am not an attorney, but
 I can read.  This makes for 51 independent jurisdictions:  the fifty states
 and the United States at a federal level.  (There might be
 fifty-something independent jurisdictions if we include DC, Puerto Rico,
 American Samoa, US Virgin Islands... but all of those extras are really
 separate areas of the single federal state).  The latter (the federal
 USA) is, legally speaking, absolutely distinct from each of the former (the
 sovereign fifty states).  Let OSM properly reflect that.


More like 200+, actually.  Indian nations are usually above the state
level, below the US level, with a few exceptions that stand independent
straddling the US/Canada border.  These aren't mapped yet, mostly because
suggestions to use administrative boundary levels 3 and 1 as default levels
most tribes and the border stragglers have either gone ignored or shot down.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2013-02-12 11:18 AM, stevea wrote:

The SR plague is well-named.  Virtually nobody in California
colloquially says State Route, except the California Highway Patrol
filling out tickets and Caltrans -- our California DOT -- on highway
engineering blueprints.  I have (slowly) begun to back out SR ref tags
to be the widespread acceptable CA # ref tags.  Another NE2 mess to
clean up, mostly.


Incidentally, Mountain View has a few signs up that say SR 85. But 
yes, I totally agree that certain states, including California, should 
use the CA 123 format. This should be a no-brainer; mapping services 
have done it this way for many years.



NE2 has also added CR  as a prefix to California
county roads, which already have their own quite well-defined
nomenclature:  nine letters (A B C D E G J N R S) designating a regional
clusters of counties followed by a number, such as G2 or S19.  To
name any of these CR G2 or CR S19 (as NE2 did) is roughly equivalent
to urinating on a tree to say NE2 was here.  These must have their CR
 prefix deleted, as well:  nobody calls the road CR S19 (as NE2 has)
they say S19.


I too was guilty of adding CR to California county roads (just a few, 
back in '08). But that was before I understood the state's road 
networks, and my edits there have long since been reverted. Now my 
penance is holding out against California-style refs in my home state. :-\


--
Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org
Jabber: m...@1ec5.org; Blog: http://notes.1ec5.org/


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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Chris Lawrence]

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
 Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in
 Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what network
 they're a part of.

I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags
to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state
prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long
modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match.
Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state
shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might
also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help.
Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the
relations, like on the shield renderer at
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper
directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood
route relations) but baby steps.

The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in
Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's
insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a
visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to
render.  But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the
bare number and SR plague has set in.


Chris
--
Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com

Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure.

I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from
NE2.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
 Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in
 Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what
network
 they're a part of.

I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags
to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state
prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long
modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve into a pissing match.
Since Mapquest seems to need ref tags to include the proper state
shield, and this standard is valid, even if alternative styles might
also be valid including the USPS prefix would seem to help.
Personally I'd prefer downstream consumers like MQ just use the
relations, like on the shield renderer at
http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ (they also can encode proper
directional information, which would be very useful if OSRM understood
route relations) but baby steps.

The only drawback I can see is that many of the route numbers in
Georgia would disappear from the default Mapnik style, due to GDOT's
insistence on cosigning virtually every US-designated highway with a
visible state designation, which would make the shields too big to
render.  But this problem wouldn't affect most of the states where the
bare number and SR plague has set in.


Chris
--
Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com

Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/

___
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] ref tags

[Chris Lawrence]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:
 The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure.

 I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from
 NE2.

FWIW I did get a pair of emails from NE2 that says, in part, he would
grudgingly accept such a change.  I'd pass them along except (a) I'm
not sure I have permission to do so and (b) I'm not sure it would be
permissible in the sense that it might constitute posting on his
behalf.  In lieu of certainty I'll paraphrase and lightly quote...

He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would
conflict with Mapnik's limitations.  He also argues that it would make
the Mapnik rendering erroneous (I suppose he's referring to the
practice of using SR xx on blade signs and lighted overhead street
signs, where the postal abbreviation is not used).  He also expresses
concern that the anti-import bullies might disapprove of a mass
edit.

(My thoughts follow.)

As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more
likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that
have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a
reference to Florida xx or Florida Highway xx instead of State
Road xx, even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the
shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama -
actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be
confused by Florida xx than xx - Turn left on 46? 46 what?) -
after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the
ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as The 101.


Chris

* Ironically this argument would carry more weight in Mississippi...
where the shield is a circle, even though legally they're Mississippi
xxx (local vernacular though tends to be [State] Highway xxx in my
experience).

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

Re: [Talk-us] ref tags

[Clay Smalley]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote:

 He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would
 conflict with Mapnik's limitations.  He also argues that it would make
 the Mapnik rendering erroneous

Tagging for the renderer.

As far as the blade sign issue goes, I expect that directions are more
 likely to use street names rather than the ref tags for routes that
 have both, and that the average driver is unlikely to be confused by a
 reference to Florida xx or Florida Highway xx instead of State
 Road xx, even if it's not the local vernacular, especially since the
 shield in most of these cases - Florida, Georgia, and Alabama -
 actually looks like the state itself* (and certainly less likely to be
 confused by Florida xx than xx - Turn left on 46? 46 what?) -
 after all, I don't think anyone has seriously proposed renaming the
 ref tags on US 101 in Los Angeles as The 101.

+1

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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Ian Dees]

Not sure if they read these, but
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:

  Anyways, we really need to get MapQuest to render by relations (where
 available on a way) and only using a way ref's tags when a relation isn't
 available..  While looking at some areas today, I've noticed they don't
 fully respect the ref tags on ways.  Here are some examples:

 http://open.mapquest.com/link/6-AAa95evZ - MapQuest is rendering only part
 of the ref here and completely ignoring the US 19 part of the ref that is
 in the middle.  Plus they are rendering it as a state route instead of a US
 route.  Right there (between PA-98 and US-19 and into Meadville) it's three
 multiplexed US Highways (US-6, US-19, US-322).  And MapQuest isn't even
 rendering US-322 separately.  So, I don't know what to say about that.

 http://open.mapquest.com/link/2-xAn4vghT - MapQuest is clearly rendering
 off the way's ref tag here as it's I 86;17.  Really bad looking IMO.  This
 would only work if both routes were Interstates.  At least here (
 http://open.mapquest.com/link/2-zcMOpyAO) it works since they are both US
 Routes.

 I so wish MapQuest had a Trac like OSM  JOSM has to report bugs.
 Because I know I would report these in a heartbeat.

 ___
 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] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Richard Weait]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:25 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Anyways, we really need to get MapQuest to render by relations

???  Wait for MapQuest?  Why?  Why aren't you rendering your own and
sending them patches? You can render a couple of small states on any
old laptop. Fix the style sheet the way you like it and send them a
patch.

Shields on relations is easy!  Any clown can do this.[1]

Here.  Interstate, US Route, NY State Highway, MA State highway and NY
County road shields.

What are you waiting for?  You want to wait for somebody else to do
this for you?  Really?

Just do it. It's fun.

Best regards,
Richard

[1] says a clown who has done this.

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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Craig Hinners]

So it's clear from the responses thatthere are differing needs here:

Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are states where "SR" is more easily understood.
At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to represent the networks of multiple states, andsome state-unique ID,be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Currently, the "ref" tag does double duty for both conceptual and rendering level concerns. That's the root cause of the problem here, and will continue to be, until the conceptual-level data is moved out of the "ref" tag into its own tag(s).

There is nothing stopping anyonefrom tagging state highwayswith conceptual-level tags this instant.One could, say, add"highway:network:us:fl=123" tags to Florida state highway 123, leaving the ref tag as "SR 123". Map users see something they're familiar with ("SR" instead of "FL"), and automated agents of OSM data get a uniquekey to identify the concept of"that network of highways in the US state of Florida". It's a win-win.

Of course,it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the conceptual-level tag, be it "highway:network:us:fl=123", or "highway:network=us:fl:123", or "highway=fl:123", but that's a diversionfrom the crux of the issue, which is the overloaded use of the"ref" tag.

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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Toby Murray]

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.com wrote:
 Of course, it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the
 conceptual-level tag, be it highway:network:us:fl=123, or
 highway:network=us:fl:123, or highway=fl:123, but that's a
 diversion from the crux of the issue, which is the overloaded use of
 the ref tag.

This explicitly split out network information should be present in
route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging
for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations.

Richard Weait has done some work on this:

http://weait.com/content/badges-badges
and
http://weait.com:8080/map/shield.html?lat=40.36679lon=-89.10653zoom=16layers=BTF

Toby

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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Richard Weait]

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:

 route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging
 for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations.

 Richard Weait has done some work on this:

 http://weait.com/content/badges-badges
 and
 http://weait.com:8080/map/shield.html?lat=40.36679lon=-89.10653zoom=16layers=BTF

Nah, shields on ways is fine for a single way / single network.  The
overlapping / co-signed networks want relations and I've been
rendering them for months.

No reason everybody else can't as well.  I'm not expecting highway
shields to appear on a layer on osm.org, though.  Shields are too
specific to North America.

And tagging?

ref=number portion only
network=countrycode_statecode_[location details as required]networkcode_variant

Interstate 95. ref=95; network=us_i
US 66 historic. ref=66; network=us_us_historic
York Regional Road 8. ref=8; network=ca_on_york

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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:

* At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to
  represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique
  ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Why? We use the same prefixes for many countries, and many countries 
have duplicate internal numbering systems (M1 north of London and in 
Northern Ireland).


There is nothing stopping anyone from tagging state highways with
conceptual-level tags this instant. One could, say, add
highway:network:us:fl=123 tags to Florida state highway 123, leaving
the ref tag as SR 123. Map users see something they're familiar with
(SR instead of FL), and automated agents of OSM data get a unique
key to identify the concept of that network of highways in the US state
of Florida. It's a win-win.
This doesn't work because of overlaps. What network would the overlap of 
NY 55 and CR 11 be in? http://www.gribblenation.net/nyends/55.html Or, 
hell, the already-mentioned example of Arkansas's 20 and Missouri's 43 
along the state line? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:End_Missouri_43.jpg


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/9/2011 10:21 AM, Toby Murray wrote:

This explicitly split out network information should be present in
route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging
for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations.


And tagging for redundancy, since relations break easily (we'll see a 
lot of this if/when the license change happens).


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Paul Johnson]

On 04/08/2011 01:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
 I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once
 and for all.  Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State
 Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.  The reason I'm
 asking is because I've seen several people put the state abbreviation in
 the ref field and some people don't.  Heck, I'm guilty of doing it both
 ways myself.  In some states you see it both ways (NY;KY), some states
 you see just the number (FL), and some states have the state
 abbreviation + number (CA).
 
 So, we really need to all come to an agreement on which way we should
 use in all the states.  Because it doesn't look good having two
 different ways to do it and it should be standardized.

Should be OK 51B or KS 66 or FL A1A, state abbreviation, space,
number.



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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Paul Johnson]

On 04/08/2011 02:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

 I think ref=OK 20;AR 42 (or equally ref=AR 42;OK 20) is the appropriate
 tag there.

Though a ref with two different states involved is fairly rare, about
the only spot I can think of where that would apply offhand would be
WA 500 if they ever start running the ferry to Chinook Landing on the
Oregon side of the river again (in which WA 500 would run from the
landing to Marine Drive in Oregon) or the example you gave of AR 42; OK
20 running down the Arkansas/Oklahoma border.

Using the NE2-suggested SH or SR would definitely be ambiguous in
many, if not most, cases (Oregon uses both state highways and state
routes (ie, State Route 99E is also State Highway 1E), while Washington
only uses State Routes, though in most cases, SR 10 would be ambiguous
since both have them.

Likewise, both Oklahoma and Arkansas use State Highways, so SH 42; SH
20 would be ambiguous to a point of confusion.



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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Paul Johnson]

On 04/08/2011 03:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
 On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
 i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags
 
 For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states,
 I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go
 away en masse.

For consistency with the rest of the country, would you mind using the
state abbreviation?  A number by itself is ambiguous if you're not using
relations (and thus have a network tag for that information).




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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Paul Johnson]

On 04/08/2011 02:11 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
 On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote:
 On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
 On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
 I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be
 settled once
 and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for
 State
 Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.
 There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a
 prefix is used, would have SR, not FL. Pennsylvania, on the other
 hand, would use PA.

 IMO, the state's postal abbreviation followed by the route number
 should be used. This makes them easily distinguished from US or
 
 But this is not always correct. In Michigan, for example, all state highways 
 are named M-nn, with M- being part of the road's actual name in many places. 
 It is never, ever, written MI-nn.
 
 States like Wisconsin get tricky, too. Wis nn is common, but so is the 
 much older STH nn (for State Trunk Highway). 

For consistency's sake, if it's part of the primary or secondary state
highway systems (ie, MO 43, MO FF) it should have just the state's
common abbreviation, not the abbreviation that only the locals would know.





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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Paul Johnson]

On 04/08/2011 07:16 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
 Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive.
 
 Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on
 Kansas highways as K-xx which is how people usually pronounce it.
 Street signs usually just have the number inside of the sunflower logo
 without any kind of lettering like this:
 
 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3667822945_b4606af872.jpg

Off topic: I didn't know it was supposed to be a sunflower, so the first
time I took US 75 to get to Williamsburg, I got a little giggle out of
the sign for K-58, because my brain parsed it as Explosion 58.



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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Paul Johnson]

On 04/09/2011 07:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
 So it's clear from the responses that there are differing needs here:
 
 * Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code
   in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are
   states where SR is more easily understood.

Most data consumers are tuned to use the USPS code and adjust the shield
as appropriate.  Let's not tag incorrectly for renderers that don't get
this right.

 There is nothing stopping anyone from tagging state highways with
 conceptual-level tags this instant. One could, say,
 add highway:network:us:fl=123 tags to Florida state highway 123,
 leaving the ref tag as SR 123. Map users see something they're
 familiar with (SR instead of FL), and automated agents of OSM data
 get a unique key to identify the concept of that network of highways in
 the US state of Florida. It's a win-win.

Why overly complicate tagging on ways in such a matter to describe
routes?  That's what we have relations for, and it handles such
situations *very nicely*.  Rather than inventing another way to tag
incorrectly for the renderer (the whole ref= tag on ways is not ideal
for a lot of reasons stemming from the fact the project didn't
necessarily expect to extend into parts of the world where you might
have six different unique highway networks in a single state (Texas, I'm
looking at you, with your TX, LOOP, SPUR, NASA, REC, and FM routes) and
needing to handle routes before relations existed.

Now that relations *do* exist, and we have a more or less established
way of handling routes using relations, overly complicating way tagging
to describe an entirely different entity (the route, which often
incorporates many different ways) simply isn't a good idea.



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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:

I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State
Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.
There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a 
prefix is used, would have SR, not FL. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, 
would use PA.


 The reason I'm asking

is because I've seen several people put the state abbreviation in the
ref field and some people don't. Heck, I'm guilty of doing it both ways
myself. In some states you see it both ways (NY;KY), some states you see
just the number (FL), and some states have the state abbreviation +
number (CA).

So, we really need to all come to an agreement on which way we should
use in all the states.

Good luck. I tried a year ago.

 Because it doesn't look good having two different

ways to do it and it should be standardized.


It looks fine on Mapquest, which removes the prefix. (This however 
causes issues with county routes, forest routes, and other such systems.)


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Mills]

On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled 
once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for 
State

Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.

There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a
prefix is used, would have SR, not FL. Pennsylvania, on the other
hand, would use PA.


IMO, the state's postal abbreviation followed by the route number 
should be used. This makes them easily distinguished from US or other 
route refs. You can't always go by the state the road is in. For 
example, in NE Oklahoma and NW Arkansas, AR-42 and OK-20 are cosigned 
along a way that runs along the border and is part of both state's 
highway network. In fact, some of the road is completely in Oklahoma yet 
is still cosigned AR-42.


I think ref=OK 20;AR 42 (or equally ref=AR 42;OK 20) is the appropriate 
tag there.


The SR naming leads to ambiguity as to which state's route number is 
being referenced.


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Kristian M Zoerhoff]

On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote:
 On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
 On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
 I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be
 settled once
 and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for
 State
 Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.
 There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a
 prefix is used, would have SR, not FL. Pennsylvania, on the other
 hand, would use PA.
 
 IMO, the state's postal abbreviation followed by the route number
 should be used. This makes them easily distinguished from US or

But this is not always correct. In Michigan, for example, all state highways 
are named M-nn, with M- being part of the road's actual name in many places. 
It is never, ever, written MI-nn.

States like Wisconsin get tricky, too. Wis nn is common, but so is the 
much older STH nn (for State Trunk Highway). 

-- 

Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerh...@gmail.com

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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/8/2011 3:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:

The SR naming leads to ambiguity as to which state's route number is
being referenced.

Just like name=Main Street leads to ambiguity as to which city's main 
street it is.


I understand the overlap between 20 and 42, but here the solution is to 
make sure the relations for both are correct.


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Richard Welty]

On 4/8/11 3:35 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:


Shouldn't the ref tag be an unambiguous reference to a given road in a 
route network? Clearly, one should not put name=MI XX on a Michigan 
state route (unless there is a road sign reading MI XX), but ref=MI 
XX provides said unambiguous reference and can be easily translated 
into the canonical name of the route. A name should go in the name 
tag, anyway. Sometimes the name and ref are identical, sometimes 
they're not.


Seems to me that the ref tag is much less useful when it's ambiguous.

Yes, we all ought to be using relations, but there's a lot of state 
routes that don't yet have relations.
the ref tags on the ways, in their current form, get used directly by 
the rendering systems.
i wish that this weren't true, but it is, and we have to deal with that 
reality. we shouldn't
do off doing anything radical without a migration plan for the data 
consumers that makes

sense.

most of the state highway pages for individual states in the wiki 
specify a pattern for the
particular state, and many (most?) of these specify the postal code 
approach, or at least,
they did the last time i looked. this approach dpes permit a state that 
has its own
convention about what goes on the sign (like michigan) to set a 
different standard for

the state.

i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags, but i 
have never agreed
with this practice. in particular, it's not great on the garmin displays 
from

maps made with mkgmap.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags


For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states, 
I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go 
away en masse.


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Richard Welty]

On 4/8/11 4:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags


For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other 
states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make 
it go away en masse.

no, you don't make it go away en masse, but you have deleted the prefixes
somewhat randomly in NY.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Richard Welty]

On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 4/8/2011 4:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

On 4/8/11 4:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags


For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other
states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make
it go away en masse.
no, you don't make it go away en masse, but you have deleted the 
prefixes

somewhat randomly in NY.


Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing?

this changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229

from 7/2010, in which the ref tag for

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48124268

was changed to 9H;23 is an example. the others i've looked at are also
from that period. maybe that was in your first few months, but i thought
you'd been mapping longer than that.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing?

this changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229

from 7/2010, in which the ref tag for

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48124268

was changed to 9H;23 is an example. the others i've looked at are also
from that period. maybe that was in your first few months, but i thought
you'd been mapping longer than that.


Oh yes, I have changed from the horrible US:[state] [number] format. 
There's no reason to put the country name in the ref tag.


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Richard Welty]

On 4/8/11 4:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote:

On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing?

this changeset:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229

from 7/2010, in which the ref tag for

http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/48124268

was changed to 9H;23 is an example. the others i've looked at are also
from that period. maybe that was in your first few months, but i thought
you'd been mapping longer than that.


Oh yes, I have changed from the horrible US:[state] [number] format. 
There's no reason to put the country name in the ref tag.

well, yes, i change those when i notice them, but within NY, you ought
to be changing them to NY xx, not xx.

richard


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

Re: [Talk-us] REF tags for State Highways on ways

[Toby Murray]

Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive.

Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on
Kansas highways as K-xx which is how people usually pronounce it.
Street signs usually just have the number inside of the sunflower logo
without any kind of lettering like this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3667822945_b4606af872.jpg

I have been tagging them as KS xx which on Mapquest gets rendered as
just the number. The K-xx ways don't get the K stripped off though
so it is inconsistent. You can see both versions here:

http://open.mapquest.com/link/4-OcIUELMD

Highway 14 was tagged by me and 171 was done by the other mapper.

I personally prefer KS xx and if this were applied consistently,
data consumers could count on that format and strip things off,
replace them with SR or whatever they want to do.

Toby

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