On Sun, 2011-08-21 at 14:11 -0400, Richard Weait wrote:
> As a super-secret, not for dissemination on public mailing lists,
> teaser, here is what a quad concurrency looks like. Rendered
> automatically. Don't tell anybody. This is just between us, okay?
>
> http://rweait.dev.openstreetmap.org/
Sent again; sorry to people who receive multiple copies due to moderation.
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't "get around" as much as you,
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me.
Those with established and often-edited cycle routes are always
complaining that they're broken. The most recent cas
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
>
>> I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
>> JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
>> I don't "get around" as much as you, Nathan,
On 8/21/2011 4:34 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
I really don't understand this logic. I have never run into a case where
JOSM has broken a relation in a way that wasn't obvious to me. Obviously
I don't "get around" as much as you, Nathan, but can you remind me of a
specific case where a relation breaks ove
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
>
>> As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the
>> ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design,
>> it's also true that many consumers don't deal
On Aug 21, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to armchair-map
That's a little harsh.
Where do you live now? New Jersey? Florida? Portland? L.A.? I can't keep
track, but you sure get around to read a lot of signage.
I think one route tag as a primary would work in NH as the DOT uses primary
routes on mile markers for the freeways. Relations can handle showing the other
routes.
Andrew
Andrew S. Sawyer
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Henk Hoff
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:
For starters, this is a more constructive response than the "go away". Thanks.
There is a ref-tag on a way and a ref-tag in the relation. Although they are
both called "ref", that does not directly mean they're the same.
My suggestion: use the way-ref for the most important one. If you want to k
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations
As NE2 notes, relations are often and easily broken by those who don't
understand them, or during an unusual edit case. Having the multiple
refs is an easy save when fixing relations.
H
On 8/21/2011 2:22 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
As someone pointed out, once you put them in a relation, the tags on the
ways become duplicative. While this is generally bad database design,
it's also true that many consumers don't deal with relations, and so we
need the duplication and the problems that
At 2011-08-21 10:57, Henk Hoff wrote:
For every rule we can find exceptions.
In this case, I will guess the exceptions (shared routes) are less than 5%
of the ways.
The basic idea behind the decision-tree was: use the most important / most
logical route for the way-ref tag.
If you know t
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz
> wrote:
>
>> Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object.
>>
>> ref="CA 60;I 215"
>>
>> or
>>
>> network="US:CA;US:I"
>> ref="60;215"
>
> Difficult to maintain for mappers and h
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz
wrote:
> Shared routes use semi-colons, like any other multi-use object.
>
> ref="CA 60;I 215"
>
> or
>
> network="US:CA;US:I"
> ref="60;215"
Difficult to maintain for mappers and harder to consume for use. Use
simply tagged relations for each route.
At 2011-08-21 10:29, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
1) network=US:CA + ref=60
2) ref=CA 60
SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The network
tag won't work here, si
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
>>
>> My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
>>
>> 1) network=US:CA + ref=60
>> 2) ref=CA 60
>
> SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The netw
On 8/21/2011 1:57 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is not a good idea.
Putting every single route-label in the ref-tag is the way we do things.
If you don't like it, you can always find a different country to
armchair-map (most countries don't have route ov
For every rule we can find exceptions.
The basic idea behind the decision-tree was: use the most important / most
logical route for the way-ref tag. Putting every single route-label in the
ref-tag is not a good idea.
If you want to identify a whole route, use a relation. Based on the relation
On 8/21/2011 9:21 AM, Alan Mintz wrote:
My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
1) network=US:CA + ref=60
2) ref=CA 60
SR 60 is a good example, since it overlaps I-215 in Riverside. The
network tag won't work here, since it needs to be both US:I and US:CA.
Great! Thanks Ben.
I downloaded the data for the two areas that I'm interested in (04060104 and
04060105) and stuck them in JOSM. I'm not sure I feel comfortable just dumping
the whole thing in (especially if it might cause problems) so I was planning on
doing it more or less item by item. Is t
At 2011-08-21 06:56, Henk Hoff wrote:
A suggestion:
- ... When the road is part of multiple routes, the main route is used.
That could be:
** a higher classification prevails (US over state)
** the continuous route prevails (if route x uses part of route y to get
to it's next section, then ro
Op 21 aug. 2011, om 15:21 heeft Alan Mintz het volgende geschreven:
>
> My understanding was that there are two options for California SR-60:
>
> 1) network=US:CA + ref=60
> 2) ref=CA 60
>
Reminds me: there are two ref-tags. One on the relation, one on the way. The
suggestion of Alan would f
At 2011-08-20 12:34, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/20/2011 3:29 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Because some states officially designate the road as "SR-26", for
instance.
I'd say most states do. That doesn't mean, though, we have to copy it. The
SR is assumed.
Not to mention states like Texas, w
At 2011-08-20 09:46, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/20/2011 12:42 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
It doesn't matter if a state like MA uses SR internally we just use that
because we deal with only one states routes. Postal code prefixes for
all routes makes the most sense.
My understanding wa
24 matches
Mail list logo
