Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Aug 21, 2014 5:11 PM, SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote: On 21/08/2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: This makes sense because you can have more than one route on one way. Some countries do this, but the UK (where the B3070 is) does not*, so there's really no need for it. to my mind don't exist) here. Except bike routes, bus routes, and pretty much every other kind of route relevant to road users that doesn't involve driving. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
For consistency sake, seems like relations are the way to go, even in one route instances. On Aug 22, 2014 10:08 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: What did you mean with this? Do you suggest we use relations when there are multiple refs, and ways when there is only one ref? Yes. It's just a pragmatic approach : I use relations only if I have no easier alternative. Like a building : if it's a simple polygon, I don't use relations. If it has a courtyard, I create a multipolygon relation. In other words, it's not because some buildings need a multipolygon relation that we should create a multipolygon relation for each building. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Aug 22, 2014 7:11 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 22/ago/2014, alle ore 20:26, Jo winfi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Do I really hear you saying I should only map bus routes as relations where the ways are used by more than one route? and as route_ref tags on the stretches where that particular road is used only by a single bus line? I also find this strange, a bus route is something very different from a street and should get its own osm object therefore. Otherwise you won't be able to tell which tags belongs to what, eg if the name (or ref or ...) is the name of the road or of the route. I just think the tools need to handle the loop scenario, where a bus route traverses the same way twice as part of a midroute dogleg or around the block situation. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Aug 23, 2014 8:54 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I have seen park roads that were accessible to the public only during specified daylight hours. Using them after park closing time would likely lead to trespassing charges. So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make sense. Or better clarity on access restrictions by time in general, given that roads or lanes may typically switch directions or be closed entirely at certain times of day, and it would be nice for routers to have something solid to hook on to for ideal routing advice. One problem that comes up a lot in Tulsa are turn restrictions that only apply during certain times of day unless you're driving vehicles operated by a specific agency... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On 24/08/2014 00:10, Andy Street wrote: That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number (usually the most significant route being carried by the road). Unsure what you mean by 'multiplex'. Do you have an example? Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On 24/08/2014 00:10, Andy Street wrote: That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number (usually the most significant route being carried by the road). I'm not convinced that we (in the UK) do. I don't believe that the M1 north of Leicester is in any way part of the A50, despite it being needed to get between two of the bits of that road (and the M6 two other bits): http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4Ie Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
[reply-to set to talk-gb so we don't bore the rest of the world!] On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:23:47 +0100 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 24/08/2014 00:10, Andy Street wrote: That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number (usually the most significant route being carried by the road). Unsure what you mean by 'multiplex'. Do you have an example? Essentially it is where two or more separate routes join together and run along a single physical section of road before diverging and continuing on their separate routes. In the UK when this happens only a single numbering scheme is used (normally the more important route). To give you a concrete example of this, consider the A272[1] which runs between the A267 in East Sussex[2] and the A30 in Hampshire[3]. Working backwards from the western end, the route runs south-west until it meets the A34 where it multiplexes until the roundabout at junction 9 of the M3. There is a short non-multiplexed section heading south (Spitfire Link) before multiplexing with the A31 heading east. After about a mile the two routes diverge and the A272 heads off cross country towards Petersfield. Since major UK road numbers are intended to be unique with the first digit signifying the zone that the road starts in[4] it is clear that the most westerly sections described above are a continuation of the route that started in zone 2 rather than separate individual roads. [1] http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=A272 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1685712401 [3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/683002 [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain_road_numbering_scheme -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are 85000 relations of that kind in the database. (1 in DE, only 100 in UK) Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full name, wikipedia/data link, ... The relation builds a single object for a specific road http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884 Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I wouldn't create extra relations. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159 In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only on the way or on the relation? While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks like missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ... Relations are not Categories discussion: Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the specific category with a database request? just my 2 cents. This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325 Regards Werner (werner2101) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Deleting, deleting... First we should try to understand the meaning, the purpose of any data that has been contributed by someone else that we don't understand. I understand the purpose and meaning of the first two relations. Each of them describe a route, so the type=route / route=road looks ok to me . The second one does not provide much more info than the members already provide, but let's consider it will improve in the future with for example an operator=* tag. For the third one, I don't understand it. It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and I don't understand the opening_hours tags. What is this supposed to describe ? Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the opening_hours ? 2014-08-23 11:18 GMT+02:00 Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de: Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are 85000 relations of that kind in the database. (1 in DE, only 100 in UK) Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full name, wikipedia/data link, ... The relation builds a single object for a specific road http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884 Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I wouldn't create extra relations. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159 In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only on the way or on the relation? While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks like missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ... Relations are not Categories discussion: Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the specific category with a database request? just my 2 cents. This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325 Regards Werner (werner2101) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On 23/08/2014 10:55, Christian Quest wrote: For the third one, I don't understand it. It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and I don't understand the opening_hours tags. What is this supposed to describe ? Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the opening_hours ? The clue's in the name, I think - Gritting Priority 1 roads - it's an attempt to capture which roads are gritted when it's icy (which in northern Scotland is most of the year apart from a couple of weeks in July :-) ). I'm not convinced that it's best represented as a route relation - in the West Midlands (who have the most extensive OSM gritting map in the UK, I think) this sort of information is collected as on this way: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/108519826 Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
I have seen park roads that were accessible to the public only during specified daylight hours. Using them after park closing time would likely lead to trespassing charges. So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make sense. On August 23, 2014 4:55:15 AM CDT, Christian Quest cqu...@openstreetmap.fr wrote: Deleting, deleting... First we should try to understand the meaning, the purpose of any data that has been contributed by someone else that we don't understand. I understand the purpose and meaning of the first two relations. Each of them describe a route, so the type=route / route=road looks ok to me . The second one does not provide much more info than the members already provide, but let's consider it will improve in the future with for example an operator=* tag. For the third one, I don't understand it. It is a big list (collection if your prefer) of roads, and I don't understand the opening_hours tags. What is this supposed to describe ? Does this mean nobody can drive on these roads except during the opening_hours ? 2014-08-23 11:18 GMT+02:00 Werner Hoch werner...@gmx.de: Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 21.08.2014, 19:20 +0100 schrieb Dave F.: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? They are used to describe infrastructure, too. Currently there are 85000 relations of that kind in the database. (1 in DE, only 100 in UK) Often the type=route route=road have extra tags like operator, full name, wikipedia/data link, ... The relation builds a single object for a specific road http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/20884 Personally, for roads with lower importance, like the B3070 I wouldn't create extra relations. http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/18159 In other mails I've seen the ref discussion again. Should it be only on the way or on the relation? While it is redundant to place it on both, it helps to do QA tasks like missing segments, wrong elements, wrong ref, ... Relations are not Categories discussion: Whenever this page is cited I'm wondering how would you identify the specific category with a database request? just my 2 cents. This one looks like a bad relation, anyone likes to delete it? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2621325 Regards Werner (werner2101) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Am 23.08.2014 15:53, schrieb John F. Eldredge: I have seen park roads that were accessible to the public only during specified daylight hours. Using them after park closing time would likely lead to trespassing charges. So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make sense. access:conditional= no @ (sunset-sunrise) or foot:conditional= no @ (sunset-sunrise) depending on other access restrictions. cu colliar signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Il giorno 23/ago/2014, alle ore 15:53, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com ha scritto: So, an opening_hours tag on those roadways would make sense. conditional access based on time would maybe be more suitable for roads cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:20:06 +0100 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? IIRC route=road relations were suggested to fix the problem of multiplexing (two or more numbered routes sharing the same physical road). In this instance the B3070 appears to be a route between Wareham and Lulworth Cove which multiplexes with the A352 at Worgret Hill. Simply doing an Overpass query for ref=B3070 would be insufficient to return all of the ways required to traverse the route from start to finish, hence the need for a relation. Ironically the the only section currently missing from the relation (the A352) is the bit that makes the relation necessary! -- Regards, Andy Street ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:09:40 +0100
SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk wrote:
On 21/08/2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote:
This makes sense because you can have more than one route on
one way.
Some countries do this, but the UK (where the B3070 is) does not*, so
there's really no need for it.
That's not strictly true, we do multiplex routes but individual
sections of road are only ever referred to by a single route number
(usually the most significant route being carried by the road).
--
Regards,
Andy Street
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On 21/08/2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: P.S. I think this is for the tagging mailing list. I'm asking about the validity of a relation, not asking whether I should use tag A or tag B, so this forum is the correct place. Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: But if you ask me, the ref tags on ways should be deleted, and route relations can be used as information for highway refs. This makes sense because you can have more than one route on one way. And if you ask me, I would say the opposite. Excepted perhaps for ways with multiple refs, these relations are just used as categories : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories We do not, however, create relations that simply collect a loose group of somewhat related items. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
2014-08-22 13:42 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: Excepted perhaps for ways with multiple refs, these relations are just used as categories : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories We do not, however, create relations that simply collect a loose group of somewhat related items. If road routes are categories, then bus routes are also categories. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: If road routes are categories, then bus routes are also categories. No. At least, the bus route relation brings some info that is not available elsewhere: the ordered list of bus stops. But if you ask me again, I would say that most of the ways added in this bus relation are unnecessary and strongly disturb other mappers (like over-segmenting highway ways). As suggested in the past, only the bus stops and some key junctions would be enough. But that's another discussion. The result of moving all common tags in parent relations is that we find ways belonging to 10, 15 or more relations... and sometimes for identical routes since it is out of control. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
2014-08-22 13:42 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: And if you ask me, I would say the opposite. *Excepted perhaps for ways with multiple refs*, these relations are just used as categories : What did you mean with this? Do you suggest we use relations when there are multiple refs, and ways when there is only one ref? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: What did you mean with this? Do you suggest we use relations when there are multiple refs, and ways when there is only one ref? Yes. It's just a pragmatic approach : I use relations only if I have no easier alternative. Like a building : if it's a simple polygon, I don't use relations. If it has a courtyard, I create a multipolygon relation. In other words, it's not because some buildings need a multipolygon relation that we should create a multipolygon relation for each building. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On 22 août 2014 13:42:55 UTC+02:00, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote: Excepted perhaps for ways with multiple refs, these relations are just used as categories : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Relations_are_not_Categories We do not, however, create relations that simply collect a loose group of somewhat related items. Pieren Don't jump directly to the 'relations are not categories' page, but start on the 'relation' page on the wiki. Of course relations members are related, and of course route relations members falls into a kind of 'road' category. Route relations exists and a ref tag is more than welcome in such relations. You are of course free to use the ref tag on ways, and let another user create a relation with another ref for another kind of route when he or she feels the need to. 'relation are not categories' is the badliest worded OSM guideline ever. Can you make a sentence starting with 'these relations are a category of way that I would define by ' Yves -- Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Do I really hear you saying I should only map bus routes as relations where the ways are used by more than one route? and as route_ref tags on the stretches where that particular road is used only by a single bus line? How can one easily check whether the routes is continuous in that case? Jo 2014-08-22 15:24 GMT+02:00 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: If road routes are categories, then bus routes are also categories. No. At least, the bus route relation brings some info that is not available elsewhere: the ordered list of bus stops. But if you ask me again, I would say that most of the ways added in this bus relation are unnecessary and strongly disturb other mappers (like over-segmenting highway ways). As suggested in the past, only the bus stops and some key junctions would be enough. But that's another discussion. The result of moving all common tags in parent relations is that we find ways belonging to 10, 15 or more relations... and sometimes for identical routes since it is out of control. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Il giorno 22/ago/2014, alle ore 20:26, Jo winfi...@gmail.com ha scritto: Do I really hear you saying I should only map bus routes as relations where the ways are used by more than one route? and as route_ref tags on the stretches where that particular road is used only by a single bus line? I also find this strange, a bus route is something very different from a street and should get its own osm object therefore. Otherwise you won't be able to tell which tags belongs to what, eg if the name (or ref or ...) is the name of the road or of the route. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
Hi http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 19:20 +0100, Dave F. wrote: Hi http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? It does look totally pointless, but it could be worth asking the mapper why. Phil (trigpoint) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
I agree it's double information. But if you ask me, the ref tags on ways should be deleted, and route relations can be used as information for highway refs. This makes sense because you can have more than one route on one way. P.S. I think this is for the tagging mailing list. Janko 2014-08-21 20:20 GMT+02:00 Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com: Hi http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=18159_noCache=on This route relation appears to be just for the B3070. Isn't that a waste of time as it's covered by the ref tags on the ways? I thought route relations were a way to allow tagging of journeys taken over numerous types of ways. Any reason why I shouldn't delete it? Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] route=road - What's that all about then?
On 21/08/2014 22:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: This makes sense because you can have more than one route on one way. Some countries do this, but the UK (where the B3070 is) does not*, so there's really no need for it. Cheers, Andy * with the exception of E road routes - which aren't signed (and therefore to my mind don't exist) here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
