On 08/04/2008 19:02, Lester Caine wrote:
>> You don't think that searching for "M11" should produce one result for a
>> road that covers the whole country, and searching for high street should
>> produce hundreds of separate results?
>
> This is EXACTLY the problem I'm trying to highlight!
> The C
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Steve Hill wrote:
> | Putting all of the separate bits of the UK's M11 in a single relation
> | sounds about as silly as putting all the roads in the UK called "Station
> | Road" in a single relation - they are separ
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andrew McCarthy wrote:
> It's specified in the "Statutory Instrument" issued by the Government.
> I've no idea if we're unique on this, but it's a big planet :)
Sounds like ref=M7;N7 is the correct thing to do in this case then. As
for what the renderers should do, that's an
Sebastian Spaeth schrieb:
> You do know that sometimes people need to download all entities of a
> relation when they download an area with a single node in it? I wouldn't
> want to download all elements of "earth" when I download my
> neighbourhood block. :-) How do you handle this problem?
Well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andrew McCarthy wrote:
| On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:31PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
|> But a motorway which is not a continuous road (i.e. has gaps in it) is
|> _not_ a single road - I see no reason why it should be treated as one.
|> Maybe you could
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andrew McCarthy wrote:
> In that case, would the use of highway relations be restricted to such
> cases where there is one *official* route, with differing refs?
"Official" by whose authority? I am not aware of the UK highways agency
publishing official routes for these gaps
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> But Richard seems to be arguing that relating parts of A roads together in a
> single relationship is by itself a bad idea, because refs are simpler.
I agree with him here though - I think it is a bad idea with the current
state of the tools, be
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:25:11PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> Which bits you use to connect the disjointed sections are a rather
> arbitrary decision - should OSM be making such decisions? I mean, there is
> no officially documented "this is how you get between these sections" route
> so we wou
Sven Grüner wrote:
> I've recently created a sandbox going the whole way from "Planet Earth"
> to "Some Road" all in nested relations. You can browse it here:
> http://osm.schunterscouts.de/relation-browser.php
> (the URL accepts other relations as well, comments welcome)
You do know that sometim
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> [A44]
> These roads have nothing to do with each other
No;
> and they shouldn't form a relationship in the database
they already do (with a small 'r'), it's the set of those ways within
the UK where ref=A44;
> and I shouldn't expect to get home from Aberystwyth
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Andrew McCarthy wrote:
> (2) A relation for that road's notional "route", that contains the
> relation above *plus* the (usually obvious) connecting bits that give
> you a single, long distance route from A to B.
Which bits you use to connect the disjointed sections are a rath
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Stubbs wrote:
| On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|>
|> Steve Hill wrote:
|> | Putting all of the separate bits of the UK's M11 in a single rela
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
[ Roads with multiple designations ]
> just using ref's doesn't work well.
Why don't they work well? Put multiple values in the tag separated by
semicolons - what's wrong with that? I understand that currently you
can't search on a single value
Lester Caine schrieb:
> Until there is some UNIQUE way of tagging high level relationships
> consistently, then there seems little point trying to fix fine detail at the
> lower level. It brings back up the simple problem of producing a unique list
> of objects in the data. How DO we currently i
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 01:33:31PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> But a motorway which is not a continuous road (i.e. has gaps in it) is
> _not_ a single road - I see no reason why it should be treated as one.
> Maybe you could cite some examples of why you need to treat it as a single
> road, even
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> Richard seemed to be arguing that putting the whole A11 (with or
> without
> the connecting parts from other roads) in a single relationship was
> "not
> brilliant". Surely that's what relationships are for?
No... because the information is already in there (in t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Ebling wrote:
| I'm firmly with Richard so far on this discussion.
|
| On one of the issues, Robert, your understanding of
| what "A14 (A11)" means seems very different to mine.
| If I understand you correctly, you're arguing the road
| should be
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But a motorway which is not a continuous road (i.e. has gaps in it) is
> _not_ a single road - I see no reason why it should be treated as one.
> Maybe you could cite some examples of why you need to treat it as a single
>
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You don't think that searching for "M11" should
You seem to be discussing a hypothetical search engine - how it works
is dependent on the implementation of the search engine, not the
structure of the database, and
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> You don't think that searching for "M11" should produce one result for a
> road that covers the whole country, and searching for high street should
> produce hundreds of separate results?
But a motorway which is not a continuous road (i.e. has gap
On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Steve Hill wrote:
> | Putting all of the separate bits of the UK's M11 in a single relation
> | sounds about as silly as putting all the roads in the UK called
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Hill wrote:
| Putting all of the separate bits of the UK's M11 in a single relation
| sounds about as silly as putting all the roads in the UK called "Station
| Road" in a single relation - they are separate roads and there is no good
| reason to
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in
> charge of maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of
> view of someone following the route
Have you talked to the people who are in charge of the road?
Maybe they are friends of OSM, as oppose
Lester Caine wrote:
> I harp back to *MY* original request.
I thought you might. ;)
> That there is a mechanism created for
> managing hierarchical data properly.
You can superimpose a "structure" on OSM two ways: either through
forcing the data to be entered and tagged in a certain way, or
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Lester Caine wrote:
> How DO we currently identify all roads in the UK, so
> that we don't end up with some of the simply silly links that the likes of
> Autoroute returns when asking for a location.
>
> We need a consistent UNIQUE index method that will allow all 'ref=M11'
> e
Lester Caine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> until there is some UNIQUE way of tagging high level relationships
> consistently, then there seems little point trying to fix fine detail at
the
> lower level. It brings back up the simple problem of producing a unique
list
> of objects in the data. How D
Steve Hill wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> If it's done consistently, one can still create relations automatically
>> later
>> if desired.
>
> But this is kind of the point - if you are able to automatically create
> the relations (and presumably automatically fix them i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
| Frederik Ramm wrote:
|> Sent: 07 April 2008 1:52 AM
|> To: Richard Fairhurst
|> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
|> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
|>
|> Hi,
|>
|>>> If y
leads to that
road.
I still don't understand the need to have a single
contiguous relation for the A11. The A11 isn't
contiguous. You could make a route relation, but I'm
unsure of it's value.
Dave
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:51:43 +0100
> F
Steve Hill wrote:
Don't road numbers in brackets generally mean "leads to" rather
than "part
of"?
[...]
I'm not sure anyone is saying it is wrong, merely unnecessary and
prone to
causing confusion/errors.
+1.
Relations are for doing things that can't otherwise be done, or done
well. Bu
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say "A14
> (A11)". This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network.
Don't road numbers in brackets generally mean "leads to" rather than "part
of"?
> I can't see how you can argu
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It's not subjective, it is officially signed - the signs say "A14
>(A11)". This happens all over the place in the UK A roads network.
I can see why this is confusing. But the identification number A11 is
shown in that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Stubbs wrote:
| On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
|> Hash: SHA1
|>
|> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
|>
|> | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
|> |
|> |> If that is the c
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> It might not be the A11 from the point of view of who is in charge of
> maintaining it, but it is the A11 from the point of view of someone
> following the route of the A11 to get somewhere. Therefore it should be
> in a relationship as part of the
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> If I peer into my crystal ball, I can see physical attributes (width,
> surface, lanes) being on ways, and non-physical attributes
> (references, routes, even street names) moving to relations. Ways will
> end up being a connected series of nodes, ending whe
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Robert (Jamie) Munro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> |
> |> If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the
> |> route of the A11
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> In the end, moving *all* tags into relations might be the best thing to
> do, but I think the editors need a lot of work before that is a viable
> option. At the moment we have a
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Stephen Gower wrote:
> Suppose I wanted to walk the whole of the A34 while I was 34 as a
> charity gig?
Ok, either:
1. You have lots of ways tagged with ref=A34
2. You have lots of relations tagged with ref=A34, one for each
discontinuous section of the road (which may be m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
| Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
|
|> If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the
|> route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it
|> isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do.
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 11:46:10AM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
>
> In this example, as far as I can tell we have 2 roads called the A11 and
> a road joining them called the A14 - route planners can deal with this
> just the same as they can deal with A11 -> A14 -> A134.
>
> Route planners shouldn'
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, David Earl wrote:
> And to take the A11/A14 example again, if the A11 in effect disappears
> where it is coincident with the A14, the A11 is discontinuous.
I'm not sure why we need to treat the whole discontinuous A11 as a single
road.
In this example, as far as I can tell w
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I assume it will usually be easier to check a machine-readable relation than
> to compare tags.
Possibly. There may be cause for having machine generated relations which
are kept up to date by the server when data is committed so the people
editing t
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I assume it will usually be easier to check a machine-readable
> relation than to compare tags. A grouping relation is a more
> abstract thing and can be used for other purposes (i.e. many ways
> might together make up the "city bypass", but this might not depend
> o
On 07/04/2008 11:11, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> But this is kind of the point - if you are able to automatically
>> create the relations (and presumably automatically fix them if
>> someone makes the way tags inconsistent with the relation tags)
>> with very little effort, is there a go
Hi,
> But this is kind of the point - if you are able to automatically
> create the relations (and presumably automatically fix them if
> someone makes the way tags inconsistent with the relation tags)
> with very little effort, is there a good reason to create them in
> the first place ra
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> If it's done consistently, one can still create relations automatically later
> if desired.
But this is kind of the point - if you are able to automatically create
the relations (and presumably automatically fix them if someone makes the
way tags inco
Hi,
> I am concerned that it adds complexity (which means there is more
> chance of human error). Complexity in some cases is unavoidable,
> but in this case I can't see a significant advantage over just
> tagging the ways and improving the API to allow searching for
> single values in mu
On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Which will omit anything tagged "ref=B4027;B4028" or some such. Ok you
> said there shouldn't be any of those in the UK anyway so I guess
> you're fine...
Then the API needs to be improved - we shouldn't be adding unnecessary
data to work around deficie
On Sun, 6 Apr 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases
> where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027)
This isn't entirely true - take, for example, the A31, which goes from
Guildford to Winchester and then vanishes as it joins the
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 07 April 2008 1:52 AM
>To: Richard Fairhurst
>Cc: Talk Openstreetmap
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always brilliant
>
>Hi,
>
>> > If you simply use the "ref" tag to specify the road number, how would
>> > you th
Hi,
> > If you simply use the "ref" tag to specify the road number, how would
> > you then use the API to access all ways making up B4027?
>
> By using OSMXAPI: http://www.informationfreeway.org/api/0.5/way
> [ref=B4027]
Which will omit anything tagged "ref=B4027;B4028" or some such. Ok you
sai
Alex S. wrote:
> In the US, there are many highways which carry more than one official
> "ref" number across long stretches. For example, US-12 shares roadway
> with sections of I-5, I-82 and I-182 in Washington State, but both
> signs
> are on the side of the roadway in these sections.
Sure,
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> There are thousands of stretches of road like this across Britain,
> but in all cases they only have one official number (very occasional
> signage errors notwithstanding).
In the US, there are many highways which carry more than one official
"ref" number across lon
Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> If that is the case, then the relationship is essential to convey the
> route of the A11 information. If the road just has 2 numbers, then it
> isn't - just a semi-colon in the ref would do.
But bearing in mind that this section _isn't_ the A11 and to tag it
as suc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
| David Earl wrote:
|
|>> In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases
|>> where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027) and no
|>> road can
|>> have more than one ref.
|> Not true - the A
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases
>> where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027) and no road can
>> have more than one ref. The relation doesn't give any info over and
>> above that in the standard 'ref' tags - it just increases compl
Hi,
> In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases
> where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027) and no road can
> have more than one ref. The relation doesn't give any info over and
> above that in the standard 'ref' tags - it just increases complexity
> for b
David Earl wrote:
>> In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases
>> where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027) and no
>> road can
>> have more than one ref.
>
> Not true - the A11 and A14 share about 10 miles of dual carriageway
> around the north of
On 06/04/2008 20:19, Karl Newman wrote:
> In the UK, road numbers are unique (apart from about three cases
> where local councils have cocked up, e.g. the B4027) and no road can
> have more than one ref.
Not true - the A11 and A14 share about 10 miles of dual carriageway
around the n
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Relations are a super-powerful tool and permit all kinds of
> whizziness (cycle routes, bus routes, areas with holes, dual
> carriageways, etc.). This much we know.
>
> On looking through the latest UK planet excerpt,
Relations are a super-powerful tool and permit all kinds of
whizziness (cycle routes, bus routes, areas with holes, dual
carriageways, etc.). This much we know.
On looking through the latest UK planet excerpt, though, I note a
handful of cases where they're being used for simple road refs. S
61 matches
Mail list logo
