Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote: > >> For Michigan route 12: >> ref=12 >> network=state >> state=michigan >> >> For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont: >> ref=16 >> network=county >> state=vermont >> county=bennington > > I like

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

Nathan Edgars II writes: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Val Kartchner wrote: >> Second, let's decide if we should render the route numbers in route-type >> specific shields. I think that we should do so. Let's not let Google, >> MapQuest and Bing be a ceiling, but instead a floor. > > No

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

On 10/25/2010 08:43 AM, Zeke Farwell wrote: > For Michigan route 12: > ref=12 > network=state > state=michigan > > For Bennington County route 16 in Vermont: > ref=16 > network=county > state=vermont > county=bennington I like it, though it should be pointed out that this is more difficult unles

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Val Kartchner wrote: > Second, let's decide if we should render the route numbers in route-type > specific shields. I think that we should do so. Let's not let Google, > MapQuest and Bing be a ceiling, but instead a floor. No for state roads in general. Some sh

[Talk-us] stop signs

okay so there are a ton of stop signs in my neighborhood that TeleAtlas don't know about, and think every road is 30mph all the way through. The current scheme isn't flexible enough to do 2 way signs http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dstop because if you put two stop node

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 22:26 -0400, Peter Budny wrote: > "No endless parsing of the tag value"? No, instead we'd have endless > parsing of the tag name instead. No, instead we have endless discussions of how to make these tag values! Even now, there are two different threads going on how to handle

Re: [Talk-us] Interstate exit junction tagging

I also support the change; name=* should be for simple names, for instance those that a toll road authority might assign (Pennsylvania Turnpike exit 312 Downingtown). This also means that 'floating street names' on urban highways without exit numbers will no longer be rendered. ___

Re: [Talk-us] Interstate exit junction tagging

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Mike N. wrote: >  Some have commented that placing exit sign information in the name results > in a cluttered map because the name renders instead of the ref.   I agree > with this. I am not opposed to changing however just to be clear, both mapnik and osmarender

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

"Craig Hinners" writes: >> > On 10/15/2010 09:44 PM, Richard Welty wrote: >> > Sans prefices, the highway=motorway where US Highway 10, Wisconsin Highway >> > 66, and Interstate Highway 39 run together would have ref=10;66;39. Not >> > very useful for determining which is which. > > This is why

Re: [Talk-us] Interstate exit junction tagging

"Mike N." writes: > The official current Wiki convention for interstate tagging > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways has the exit > sign information being placed in the name= tag. The > motorway_junction tag > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junctio

Re: [Talk-us] Interstate exit junction tagging

On 10/25/10 9:44 PM, Mike N. wrote: The official current Wiki convention for interstate tagging http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways has the exit sign information being placed in the name= tag. The motorway_junction tag http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotor

[Talk-us] Interstate exit junction tagging

The official current Wiki convention for interstate tagging http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways has the exit sign information being placed in the name= tag. The motorway_junction tag http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction introduces a new exit_to

Re: [Talk-us] Possible method for identifying major US cities

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > In effect this is a classification by population of the urbanized area > rather than only within the city limits, with a > micropolitan-metropolitan cutoff of 50,000 instead of our town-city > cutoff of 100,000. Perhaps it would be best to

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 10/25/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >>> >>> I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states >>> (Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of >>> the >>> reference number: “The M in the st

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On 10/25/2010 04:31 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: I totally agree. My point is just that some people and some states (Michigan, Kansas) feel that the prefix itself is an important part of the reference number: “The M in the state highway numbers is an integral part of the designation…Michigan high

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 10/25/2010 02:44 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: >> >> * Alex Mauer [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]: >>> >>> So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed >>> to be a requirement no matter what. >> >> Not strictly. Having a prefix in

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On 10/25/2010 02:44 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: * Alex Mauer [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]: So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed to be a requirement no matter what. Not strictly. Having a prefix in the rendering is important, but that can be synthesized from the other ta

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

What about using "network:country" "network:state" etc for routes and the example of the NY route running into PA would be solved. If you wanted an "is_in" tag that route would have to be split into two relations. Andrew On 10/25/2010, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > is_in doesn't work; part of New Y

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

* Alex Mauer [2010-10-25 12:44 -0500]: > So dealing with having a prefix in the ref is pretty much guaranteed > to be a requirement no matter what. Not strictly. Having a prefix in the rendering is important, but that can be synthesized from the other tags in every suggestion that's been made.

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

On 10/25/10 2:58 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: On 25 October 2010 12:49, Mike N. > wrote: > Multiple is_in=* tags. How is this different from the normal argument that is_in is obsolete because the object is contained within an admin boundary and the app

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

is_in doesn't work; part of New York State Route 17 is in Pennsylvania. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

On 25 October 2010 12:49, Mike N. wrote: > > Multiple is_in=* tags. > >How is this different from the normal argument that is_in is obsolete > because the object is contained within an admin boundary and the applicable > is_in can be derived during a geo-query? > +1 If a polygon exists, the

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

> Multiple is_in=* tags. How is this different from the normal argument that is_in is obsolete because the object is contained within an admin boundary and the applicable is_in can be derived during a geo-query? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@open

Re: [Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

On 10/23/2010 10:46 AM, Ian Dees wrote: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars IIwrote: Because we're not in Europe? The common way to visually specify the difference between our roads is with shields. Every single nav product I've interacted with (Google Maps, MapQuest, Bing, Garmin, T

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Phil! Gold wrote: > First was just how route information should be represented. Almost > everyone agreed on two things: that route shields should be rendered with > network-appropriate shield shapes, not the textual prefixes we have now; > and route relations are

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Multiple is_in=* tags. I think this is the consensus for the rest of the world (at least I've seen it on a few other geometries around the world). On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Leroy E Leonard wrote: > Are we talking a single "is_in" tag, which will bring back the string > parsing problem, or

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

Are we talking a single "is_in" tag, which will bring back the string parsing problem, or multiple tags like "is_in:state" and "is_in:county"? -- Lee On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Andrew S. J. Sawyer wrote: > I also agree with Phil. The operative tag is the "network" tag. Which > should ref

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

I also agree with Phil. The operative tag is the "network" tag. Which should refer to either country, state, county as found in the "is_in" tags, without having to have a "new" tag. I think this is the way to go. Andrew On 10/25/2010, Phil! Gold wrote: > * Zeke Farwell [2010-10-25 09:43 -0400]:

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

* Zeke Farwell [2010-10-25 09:43 -0400]: > For those who do want to render different shields for each state and/or > county routes why not use sub tags as we commonly do for many other > osm features Ian has suggested the established is_in= tag for this purpose, and Alex Mauer has suggested a rel

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

I like Zeke's approach. Andrew On 10/25/2010, Zeke Farwell wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > >> I don't know what to call it, but values would be interstate, us_route, >> state_route, county_route, etc. The specific information about what >> county/state it's in, the

Re: [Talk-us] Route Tagging Consensus

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > I don't know what to call it, but values would be interstate, us_route, > state_route, county_route, etc. The specific information about what > county/state it's in, the human readable name, the prefix, etc. should all > be stored in different ta