On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]:
>> I think concurrencies might look better stacked vertically in some
>> circumstances... you'd have to have some logic about the underlying
>> direction of the way to make that happen, but vertical st
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]:
> But it's still strange to see shields hanging off either side of a
> north-south stretch of road. [1]
>
> I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency
>
> [1] http://elrond.aperiodic.net/mtiles/cutouts/15/8690/12512.png
* Chris Lawrence
On 4/3/2012 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" mailto:nerou...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> That tagging is nonsense. There's no "Truck U.S. Highway" network,
only a U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ba
On Apr 3, 2012 3:15 PM, "Nathan Edgars II" wrote:
>
> That tagging is nonsense. There's no "Truck U.S. Highway" network, only a
U.S. Highway network that includes truck-bannered routes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't bannered routes pretty much the reason
for the "modifier" tag?
On 4/3/2012 5:19 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
If you want to tag your local routes that way, I won't stop you. But I
don't want to have to deal with multiple tagging standards and it seems to
me that there's a consensus on this list that network=US:US:Truck, ref=17
is the better approach, so that's wha
That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes. And
these edge cases (city routes and state secondary/supplemental routes,
especially oddball (Oregon) and extreme (Texas) cases) make for great
prepwork to render cycleway network trailblazers (which tend towards
obscenely diverse in m
* Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 15:15 -0400]:
> As NE2 correctly points out, the number may not be the best guide. VA
> secondaries are a lot more like CR systems in other states or the
> secondary system in Missouri, in that the numbering doesn't carry
> between counties/cities (e.g. there are prob
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 13:36 -0400]:
> On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> >Point taken. They will appear on our particular rendering if the locals
> >choose to change the tagging.
>
> So you'll include network=US:US ref=17 Truck as acceptable tagging?
> Since I'm local to said rou
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
>>
>> * Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]:
>>>
>>> On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref t
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> Ah, okay. I'll set them up just like other
> named-but-not-publically-numbered routes like the New Jersey Turnpike and
> look for network US:OK, no ref, and whetever their name is.
Just to avoid confusion with ODOT highways (numbered Oklahoma
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]:
>> - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at
>> all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are
>> ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simp
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually
>> the same network)
>
>
> Er no. On roadside assemblies the text "FARM ROAD" and "RANCH ROAD" appears,
> and on green gui
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 12:07:57PM -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes.
>
> I'm not aware of any such routes in Chicago. Are you thinking of the
> address numbers that are prominently posted on si
On 4/3/2012 12:52 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]:
On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
be represented as network=US:TX:LOO
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 08:59 -0700]:
> That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes.
I'm planning on looking at city routes after we sort out county routes.
> And these edge cases (city routes and state secondary/supplemental
> routes, especially oddball (Oregon) and extreme (
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-03 11:44 -0400]:
> On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> >A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
> >subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
> >be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is c
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 09:36 -0700]:
> "INDIANA" and possibly others would be more legible in a wider font.
> There's still space on either side to accommodate the text.
Only on the wide-format shields. On the narrower ones used for two-digit
numbers, the name runs right to the edge.
> If th
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 08:57 -0700]:
> >> Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma State Tour Routes
> >
> > Not currently supported. Can you point me at some information about
> > these?
>
> I don't think there's been a real effort to tag these yet, the four in
> Oregon I'm aware of are the Lewis & Clark
Ngày 2012-04-03 5:17 AM, Phil! Gold viết:
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]:
Displaying concurrent shields in bunches is certainly an improvement
over all the maps that just pick one shield to display, and they
look like reassurance sign assemblies to boot. But it's still
strange to see sh
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:54 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 08:17:16 AM Phil! Gold wrote:
>> * Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]:
>>
>> > I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with
>> > no spacing between each shield. That would be especially
On 4/3/2012 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business.
It probably isn't tagged that way. Once it is, it'll show up.
Again, you mean "if", not "once". It's not the job of renderers to force
a choice between equally-valid existing taggin
On 4/3/2012 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
That just reminded me... Chicago and Tulsa have city routes.
I'm not aware of any such routes in Chicago. Are you thinking of the
address numbers that are prominently posted on signs?
___
Talk-us mailing li
* Chris Lawrence [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]:
> - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at
> all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are
> ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA:
> if the ref >= 600, or it has a letter i
On 4/3/2012 11:57 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
FM and RM should render identically (obviously since they're actually
the same network)
Er no. On roadside assemblies the text "FARM ROAD" and "RANCH ROAD"
appears, and on green guide signs the shields have "FM" or "RM" up top.
http://onlinemanuals.tx
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
>>
>> A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
>> subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
>> be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Onc
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Richard Weait wrote:
> The edge cases are an opportunity for we, as a community, to get it
> right. There are many many more signed routes that will be interesting
> to one or more groups, as long as we have a reasonable way to tag
> them.
That just reminded me...
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 07:21 -0700]:
>> Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out,
>> such as Missouri Secondary State Highways
>
> Someone seems to have made route relations for a lot of these already,
> with a netwo
On 4/3/2012 11:19 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
A lot of those still don't render because they duplicate the
subnetwork in the ref tag, so Loop 5 (picking an arbitrary number) might
be represented as network=US:TX:LOOP, ref=5 Loop. Once the ref is changed
to a plain "5", it would be rendered properly.
On 4/3/2012 10:54 AM, James Umbanhowar wrote:
I don't know if they use Mapnik, but I like the way Stamen places their
shields along concurrencies. e.g.
http://maps.stamen.com/terrain/#15/39.7542/-86.0373
The problem with this one is that only one shield shows up when the two
shields would be
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out,
> such as Missouri Secondary State Highways, Oregon/Washington/Oklahoma
> State Tour Routes, Oklahoma/Kansas Turnpike, or the 7 state highway
> networks in Texas that aren't "
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 07:23 -0700]:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Alexander Jones wrote:
> > Rosecrans is technically no longer a state highway, as CA 209 was
> > decommissioned in 2003. I could take another look at 75 when the database is
> > editable again.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong
* Paul Johnson [2012-04-03 07:21 -0700]:
> Also curious how some of the more interesting edge cases work out,
> such as Missouri Secondary State Highways
Someone seems to have made route relations for a lot of these already,
with a network of US:MO:Supplemental, so that's what I chose to key off
On Tuesday, April 03, 2012 08:17:16 AM Phil! Gold wrote:
> * Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]:
>
> > I'd prefer to see the shields strung out along the concurrency, with
> > no spacing between each shield. That would be especially helpful
> > where the concurrency's shields happen to appear n
On 4/3/2012 10:21 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
- Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at
all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are
ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA:
if the ref>= 600, or it has a letter in it, i
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Alexander Jones wrote:
>> And oddly, in the San Diego area, "CA 209" and "CA 75" (Point Loma
>> and Coronado, respectively) don't render with your newer shields, but
>> the old style Mapnik shields. Even in "read only mode" I am unable
>> coax JOSM to "read only"
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> * CrystalWalrein [2012-04-02 15:45 -0700]:
>> For areas in New Jersey, when I look at this rendering, I get county shields
>> for all 500-series roads, but no shields are shown for 600-series roads
>> anywhere.
>>
>> The formatting for county ro
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> Here's something that might be a diversion while you wait for the database
> to allow editing again.
>
> Richard Weait and I have been working on a rendering that uses route
> relations to make individual shields that reflect what each state uses
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Kate Chapman wrote:
> I personally find [building footprints] makes the map far more usable
> for adding other information.
>
the coastal-swath NOAA LIDAR footprints imported is MASS are wonderful.
(Especially in Stamen watercolor tiles, but also in TopOSM rende
* Nathan Edgars II [2012-04-02 14:34 -0400]:
> A total of *two* relations have network=US:US:Business, vs. 707 with
> network=US:US and modifier=Business. Yes, I know I had major
> influence in that, but that was months ago.
There's also one US:OR:Business (which also has modifier=Business), one
* Minh Nguyen [2012-04-03 02:19 -0700]:
> Displaying concurrent shields in bunches is certainly an improvement
> over all the maps that just pick one shield to display, and they
> look like reassurance sign assemblies to boot. But it's still
> strange to see shields hanging off either side of a no
These are based off of Lambertus's work here:
http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl
If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel
free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The
odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by
asking on the talk-us@ l
stevea wrote:
> Most specific shields in California look "good and familiar," as you
> make correct distinctions between Interstates and state routes.
> However, "county routes" (designated by a "regional letter" and a
> number, such as "S 21") are not rendered with proper shields at all.
> This i
* CrystalWalrein [2012-04-02 15:45 -0700]:
> For areas in New Jersey, when I look at this rendering, I get county shields
> for all 500-series roads, but no shields are shown for 600-series roads
> anywhere.
>
> The formatting for county route relations in New Jersey is
> 'network="US:NJ:[county
Ngày 2012-04-02 5:25 AM, Phil! Gold viết:
There are actually two shield styles we have. There's the cutout-style
that you see by default and another style you can switch to that more
closely resembles the roadside reassurance signs for the routes. The
cutouts will probably load faster--more of
Posting a cc of this to talk-us in case others can't download data in
while OSM is in read-only mode: try THIS!
Wbat version of JOSM are you using? I'm having no problem using
that plugin in v5159.
Ah, thank you so much, James. I was using 5088, upgrading to 5159
did it. Dang, that's a f
45 matches
Mail list logo
