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 if someone
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 DO we
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'
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
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 opposed
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 so
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
road,
-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, 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 gaps in
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
-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 relation
|
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 rather
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
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 sometimes
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 would be
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
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,
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
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 separate
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 CURRENT
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 then use the API to access all ways making up B4027?
By using
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
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
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 rather
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 we
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
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't be
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
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
-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, 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
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, 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, 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
-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 case, then
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 case
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 argue that
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. But
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
From: Robert (Jamie) Munro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Relations not always
brilliant
-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 you simply use the ref tag to specify
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.
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,
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
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 Newmarket,
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 both
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 complexity
-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 A11 and
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 such
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 long
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, and in
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
said there
51 matches
Mail list logo
