tes. So whether we write CR 1, CH 1, or 1 it won't be unique even
in the state, let alone between states. I do not have a unique solution to
propose. Fortunately most regional traffic events happen on state routes
(e.g., CA, US, I ) and most CR events are of local interest only. But I
would re
an wrote:
> name:lang tags are for the name in lang, not for the name translated to
> lang. My neighborhood name could be translated into many languages, but
> that doesn’t mean it has anything other than an English name.
>
>
>
> It’s also important to remember that English is not
ame:it or name:rm if there is only one name (which, if you think of it
> might lead to issues in exactly such bi-lingual places). Anyway I
> definitely don't have a couple of 100 Kort challenges around where I live
> (mono-lingual German speaking region), so likely you are seeing somethi
Simon,
I tried Kort here in Portland, Oregon. It gave me some interesting things
to think about. I'd hoped to send them to talk-ch, but it seems I can't
without subscribing in the longer term. Maybe you can relay this to your
local colleagues?
Kort gave me three types of mission. One was to ente
d destinations on
ramps, and neither relations method (methods #1 or #2) can offer this.
Currently US ramps are naked. They have no ref, no name, nothing to say
what they do. Now the Dutch and Germans have signed off on "destination"
and "destination_ref", might it be time for th
Thanks, Mihh.
Actually I'm interested in any road on which significant traffic incidents
and slowdowns occur, including county roads and major named urban streets
(OSM primary, secondary, and maybe tertiary). I've not heard of anyone
planning to go down to those levels with route relations, but w
e).
The other three routes I've checked out in far NW Italy (T1, T2 and A5) are
all "new construction" and look like their US counterparts.
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Peter Davies writes:
>>
>> >?Does
Paul
This is really helpful in confirming to me that I can't use relations in my
apps, as there are too many unfinished ones. Can anyone tell me if they
know of anyone else with such a spreadsheet for any other states?
Peter
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm working
forward in 99.9% of cases. It's only really
needed if we have:
posted:forward=Muskogee Turnpike south
posted:backward=Muskogee Turnpike east
which is *extremely *rare. I think Paul Johnson will let us know if he can
definitely find it in Oklahoma.
Time to get it done and just "do i
I am very interested to see Paul Johnson's OK relation completion
spreadsheet, as I'm trying to make a business decision on whether to use
relations when importing OSM data into into our state DOT traffic
information applications. These apps are neither navigation nor mapping,
but share some charac
Martijn,
When you're dealing with a repeatedly mixed single/dual carriageway road,
such as CA 78, the lack of a diagram in JOSM showing single/dual logic
once you switch from role=forward to role=east (or west) soon becomes
unbearable. In the end I gave up and created separate EB and WB relation
Paul,
One of the things that Martijn and I agree needs to be possible is for
routes to change directional posting part-way along. This commonly happens
on beltways like that around Minneapolis St-Paul, that around Indie, and on
AZ Loop 101 and 202 here in Metro Phoenix.
For my part, I also feel w
uide, but the use of multiple route signs on a
> single pole tells you that the DOTs want us to know all the route numbers
> of a given stretch of pavement. The MapQuest Open layer of OSM does the
> same and for me at least, this does not represent “shield clutter.”
>
>
>
>
>
M standard layer,
> neither of those route numbers is visible at any zoom level for a 75 mile
> stretch of interstate. The same thing happens on US-41/M-28 west of
> Marquette, MI until you get to z=13. This is not a “user friendly” view
> for map users.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
eir "Highest system, lowest number" route first is a
good first approximation for armchair mapping, but it cannot be used to
overrule facts on the ground.
Peter Davies
Castle Rock Associates
Portland, Oregon
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM, James Mast wrote:
> I know awhile back
o used in signage. You never know who is using a given piece
> of pavement by following which route number. Just because the locals might
> call it “the Miracle Mile” doesn’t mean that is the appropriate choice for
> shield priority.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *
eter
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote:
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary
> designators in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one
; "outsiders" trying to navigate through an area.
>
>
> Kerry Irons
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:45 PM
> To: Eric Fischer
> Cc: Martijn van Exel; Richard Welty; OSM
sist for long distances where people refer to the paired name. I think
> Highway 1-9 in New Jersey, which is both US 1 and US 9, is the main
> example, but Highway 12-18 in Madison, WI (US 12 and US 18) also comes to
> mind.
>
> Eric
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:21 PM,
Last night I wrote a long discussion of why I think we need to show the
cardinal directions of both OSM forward and OSM backward for 2-way ways
that serve both route directions in relation member roles.
In particular I argued for the use of two different symbols for two use
cases: one where the ta
of cramming multiple data
elements into a single tag. Personally I'm not a purist about such things,
but I've seen some people shudder at the current U.S. "way ref tag"
practices of listing route refs one after another in a single data field.
Peter
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 10
I think it useful to spin off this topic from the long and still unfinished
debate about directional roles in relations. I hope it can be agreed more
quickly than the cardinal directional roles issue!
The question is how to handle US roadway routes that are double, triple or
even quad-banded, hav
Martijn,
While spending the last three weeks comparing different methods of defining
cardinal directions in member roles, I noticed that iD makes it hard to see
which direction on a way is currently OSM forward. Potlach makes it easy,
once you grasp what the arrow shows. JOSM does it less intuiti
Martijn,
Roads like I 394 west of downtown Minneapolis have several miles of
collector-distributor lanes (separate carriageways running parallel to the
main motorway carriageways) in each direction whose purpose is to handle
slower entering and leaving traffic without creating dangerous "short
wea
Martijn
I just wrote a short novel on why I think we should use obviously different
cardinal direction roles on single carriageway roads than on dual
carriageway ways, and so I'll not repeat myself here.
Peter
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> James, all,
>
> Work on
s in ID, MN and San Diego
County instead of arguing this from common sense alone) and in iD/Potlach
it's a whole lot easier to see what is happening if you code single
carriageways to reflect each of the two travel directions that they carry.
Here I rest my case for the use of the pipe character
Other examples of weird route designators include Arizona's "Loop 101" and
"Loop 202" freeways in Maricopa County (Greater Phoenix). They are state
highways, 100% freeways (probably), one around metro PHX and the other
around the East Valley (Tempe/Mesa etc.). Like James I think that the
route de
ural) confusion. Introducing the GIS concept of linear
> referencing into this discussion I think adds to the confusion. We
> should perhaps discuss that separately - I for one don't see the
> immediate relation between the two, but I am happy to be proven wrong.
>
> On Wed
James,
I have a question about this, though it all sounds good to me in principle.
Is your proposal just about the relations? What would we do on the refs
of the ways? For example, on I-394 in Minneapolis and western suburbs, a
mapper has left off US 12 because it is at least partly unsigned. S
I should add that in OSM, I-35W is written "I 35W", without the dash. I-35
splits into I-35W and I-35E in MSP (MN) as well as in DFW (TX). Mn/DOT is the
Minnesota Dept of Transportation. Peter Davies
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: peter.dav...@cr
We at Castle Rock Associates and our client Mn/DOT agree that I-35W is the
route designator (ref on the way in OSM).
Peter Davies
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: James Mast
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 23:44:09
To: Saikrishna Arcot; OSM US
Talk
Subject: Re
When I typed "The cost of reporting the whole route is usually
prohibitive." below I meant "The cost of reposting the whole route is
usually prohibitive." By "posting" I mean signing.
Peter Davies, Castle Rock
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Peter Davies wrote
node direction is southbound would mean
> forward and backward would mean 'north'
>
> If the logic I stated above successfully captured with your
> suggestion, then I would like to expand on it. Why not just make the
> cardinal direction value-forward/backward value relati
Martijn,
I think it would be conceptually clearest for all the 2-way single
carriageway ways to point the same way and would suggest that this should
normally in be the direction of increasing milepoints/pointes kilometriques
(usually northwards or eastwards). At Castle Rock we call this the
pos
Trying again ...
-- Forwarded message --
From: Peter Davies
Date: Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:46 AM
Subject: Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Kristen and Martijn,
I've not posted here before so I hope I
35 matches
Mail list logo
