Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-08 Thread John Smith
On 8 September 2011 10:48, Mark Pulley wrote: > Quoting Ian Sergeant : > >> I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the >> road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the >> information right now. > > For those interested, a partial history of the developme

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Mark Pulley
Quoting Ian Sergeant : I'm sure we are interested in the history of the development of the road network, but I'm not sure our database is the place for the information right now. For those interested, a partial history of the development of Highway 1 is at Ozroads: http://www.ozroads.com.a

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Steve Bennett
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > An actual connected route along roads on the ground in this instance either > doesn't exist or cannot be determined from any verifiable source. > > OSM requires verifiability, for reasons I consider apparent.  A route > relation requires that

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Ian Sergeant
I wrote: I'm sure people say they are going to drive the Princes Highway from Sydney to Melbourne, but you can never pin it down to actual set of roads. They just mean they are driving down the coast, as opposed to the Hume. It is a useful turn of phrase, but it is a mapping anachronism. On

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread John Henderson
On 08/09/11 07:58, Ian Sergeant wrote: The issue I have is with using a route relation with a road name to link split parts of a named road, and including roads that don't have a name or alternate name in common with the route, and can't clearly be identified as part of that route by survey. I

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Ian Sergeant
I wrote: > This is why route numbers were invented. So routes can be followed across > multiple road names. The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise > discoverable. On Sep 6, 2011 3:02 PM, "Steve Bennett" wrote: > I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is >

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Liz
On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 16:31:38 +1000 Ian Sergeant wrote: > The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name > management name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of > a bunch of roads between Sydney and Adelaide. > > It isn't a route any longer. > > I'm sure people s

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 September 2011 15:19, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Nah, that is all good to me. I've got nothing against relations. Nothing > against routes. Nothing against multiple relations and multiple routes. In > fact, I'd have nothing against a parent relation that linked the sections of > the National R

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant wrote: > I write " I just have something against this relation, because it is > arbitrary and confusing" > > and you write "So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole > route because it isn't contiguous?" Most routes are arbitrary and confus

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread John Smith
On 7 September 2011 16:31, Ian Sergeant wrote: > The Princes Highway is an historical curiosity, and internal name management > name assigned by the NSW roads authority, and the name of a bunch of roads > between Sydney and Adelaide. > > It isn't a route any longer. It's still a series of non-con

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 7 September 2011 15:53, John Smith wrote: > On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > I write " I just have something against this relation, because it is > > arbitrary and confusing" > > > > and you write "So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole > > route because

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-07 Thread Andrew Harvey
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:37 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should the changeset have a tag to indicate this? > > license=CC0 perhaps? Possibly. I have to be careful about disclaiming my copyright vs. giving assurances on the license of such data. I don't know enough of the legal side to under

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread John Smith
On 7 September 2011 12:27, Ian Sergeant wrote: >> Princes Highway is part of route 1. > > This isn't helpful. National Route 1 and the Princes Hwy diverge at many > points. National Route 1 follows the Southern Freeway south from Sydney for > a start. So what, how does that make routes less usef

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Richard Weait
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: [regarding a relation with gaps] > I have surveyed, it is removed from the relation, and consequently the > relation has a gap. > > My understanding is for this relation type - a route - gaps are not > allowed.  After all, this is the whole poin

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 7 September 2011 11:55, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > What I'm talking about here is a "route" relation. I'm arguing that we > > don't need a named route relation called the Princes Highway. > > But your argument consists of "I can't decide which roads should make > up the relation, so let's del

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Steve Bennett
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > The RTA in NSW has an internal route that they call the Princes Highway - > which is essentially the main road heading south along the coast (give or > take).  They nominate this route because it is the one they maintain as a > state govt road

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 6 September 2011 14:10, Liz wrote: > according to my personal knowledge, it has run between Adelaide and > Sydney via Melbourne for decades. > > Hi Liz, This is fine and good, and common knowledge. However, when you start looking at the road at the micro-level on the ground, it ain't that

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread John Smith
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley wrote: > In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it > goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted > with the route number. > > I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation tho

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread John Smith
On 6 September 2011 12:20, Steve Bennett wrote: > According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to Sydney: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway If memory serves correctly, it changes name through Melbourne. ___ Talk-au ma

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread John Smith
On 6 September 2011 12:50, Ian Sergeant wrote: > This document tells which roads are RTA funded, and which are local roads, > and does have a Princes Hwy route for the purposes of funding. However, I > really believe we should stick to mapping what is on the ground, else we are > going to run int

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Liz
On Tue, 6 Sep 2011 12:20:15 +1000 Steve Bennett wrote: > According to Wikipedia, it should extend all the way from Adelaide to > Sydney: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princes_Highway according to my personal knowledge, it has run between Adelaide and Sydney via Melbourne for decades. But the "re

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread 80n
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > >> That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway >> through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made >> the change in fosm, >> http://api.fosm.o

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 6 September 2011 19:49, Andrew Harvey wrote: > That reminds me.. I've just updated the name of the Princess Highway > through Engadine based on the signed name via ground survey. I've made > the change in fosm, > http://api.fosm.org/api/0.6/changeset/102770/download feel free to > mirror

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-06 Thread Andrew Harvey
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Ben Kelley wrote: > In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it > goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted > with the route number. > > I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relatio

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Steve Bennett
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > This is why route numbers were invented.  So routes can be followed across > multiple road names.  The route numbers are on the ground, or otherwise > discoverable. I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or not, but: assuming that there is an uncon

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 6 September 2011 13:59, Ross Scanlon wrote: > But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground. > > All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have to > be a through route. It may have side branches as in the Sutherland example. > But if the sign says Old Pri

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 6 September 2011 13:48, Steve Bennett wrote: > Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these > questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mean we > should just delete everything. > Agreed, but not by any stretch what I'm suggesting. > Yes, it means tha

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ross Scanlon
On 06/09/11 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon mailto:i...@4x4falcon.com>> wrote: No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Australian_Tagging___Guidelines#Route_Numbers

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Steve Bennett
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > But what is the new route, and what is the old route?  If we can't answer > this question, then we can't map it. Ian, the world is a complicated place, and the answers to these questions are not always straightforward to answer. It doesn't mea

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > No. The route is still the Princes Highway as per here: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Australian_Tagging_** > Guidelines#Route_Numbers > > How do I tell w

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ross Scanlon
On 06/09/11 10:50, Ian Sergeant wrote: On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley mailto:ben.kel...@gmail.com>> wrote: In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route num

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ian Sergeant
On 6 September 2011 07:13, Ben Kelley wrote: > In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it > goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted > with the route number. > So best to use the route number to define a route when it exists, ra

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Steve Bennett
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > The Princes Highway isn't really a route.  I can't get my head around > including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes > name, etc) in a relation called the Princes Highway.  It is just wrong IMO. I'm not sure wha

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Stephen Hope
I don't know about that road in particular, but I do know that in at least some highways around country NSW that when they go through a small town, the name can change to a local street name, but it is also still part of the highway. Sometimes you'll actually see both names on a sign, mostly you do

Re: [talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ben Kelley
In general I think it is common that a highway has a different name when it goes through a town. Here the route continues, and will often be signposted with the route number. I'm not sure if that is the case for every road in this relation though. - Ben. On Sep 6, 2011 7:04 AM, "Ian Sergeant"

[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

2011-09-05 Thread Ian Sergeant
Does anyone have a good justification for keeping this road route reln? http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/538443 The Princes Highway isn't really a route. I can't get my head around including roads that are not the Princes Highway (where it deviates, changes name, etc) in a relation c