Ahh right that is why there is US:US
It gives a logical and consistent construction as well as delineated fields
for building the name with the ability to make state specific shield rules
based on it.
--
Dale Puch
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Jason Straub strau...@yahoo.com wrote:
As
As the person that just got done labelling each TX state highway, I'll chime in
here with some comments.
For the network tag, I think that the labelling should be (country : state
network : network within the state : subnetwork in state), while the ref is
JUST the number for that highway. So:
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Jason Straub strau...@yahoo.com wrote:
As the person that just got done labelling each TX state highway, I'll chime
in here with some comments.
For the network tag, I think that the labelling should be (country : state
network : network within the state :
FWIW, I agree with allof Jason's suggestions, below,for the relation-level "network" tag values. It mirrors my thinking on the matter exactly.
Original Message Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highwaysFrom: Jason Straub strau...@yahoo.comDate: Wed, August 24, 2011
, and some states (Arkansas in
particular) treat them as lettered suffixes rather than separate plates.
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
From: Jason Straub strau...@yahoo.com mailto:strau...@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, August 24
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
From: Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, August 24, 2011 6:37 pm
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On 8/24/2011 6:25 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
FWIW, I agree with all of Jason's suggestions, below, for the
relation-level network tag
On 8/24/2011 7:25 PM, Craig Hinners wrote:
I see what you're saying about Arkansas, in that their treatment of US
business routes on signage feels more like a different designation.
On the other hand, Maryland uses a totatally different shield design for
business US routes (basically a
The scheme sounds simple enough at first but is it robust and usable? If
not what would it take to make it so? Here are some of my thought on it.
The way I see it you take the last element of the network tag (FARM in this
case) and that is the network.
Ref is the ID in that network
The first
I do my best to avoid anything to do with highway relations, but FWIW I
recently did just this in Potlatch 2--split a way that's part of relations
to add a bridge and totally ignored the relations--and it all worked out
fine as far as I can tell: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/126659318
On 8/22/11 10:53 AM, Brad Neuhauser wrote:
I do my best to avoid anything to do with highway relations, but FWIW I
recently did just this in Potlatch 2--split a way that's part of relations
to add a bridge and totally ignored the relations--and it all worked out
fine as far as I can tell:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called latitude and
longitude, which allow you to find out
Mike N. wrote:
Those with established and often-edited cycle routes are always
complaining that they're broken. The most recent case is this week:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13524
Last editor was JOSM, and if his analysis was correct, the most
recent edit broke the
On 8/22/2011 12:05 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there
being an M1 in many other countries - and even in Northern
Ireland, part of the same country.
There are some little-known fields in OSM data called
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 13:31:51 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
And what state, despite the implications of some here.
Other than the cases where a state maintains a road as part of their
route network which is not actually in that state. Or the more common
case where a state highway is
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 over
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all.
So are you volunteering to make relations for every route that has this
complication?
___
Talk-us mailing list
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/2011 4:46 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 15:08:22 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
In both those (literally) edge cases, the relation will tell all.
So are you volunteering to make relations for
On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
If there is no overlap, a single network / ref pair will work just
fine. Why wouldn't it? What breaks is multi-values in network / ref
tags. Don't do that. We have better ways to do this; relations.
Relations break. Hence ref tags are there as a
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 16:52:48 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
But the same problem exists with county routes along county lines. Do
you think the ref tag for a county route should contain a county
abbreviation?
FIPS codes would be better, as they are a completely unique identifier
for US
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8/22/2011 5:47 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
If there is no overlap, a single network / ref pair will work just
fine. Why wouldn't it? What breaks is multi-values in network / ref
tags. Don't do that. We have better
On 8/22/2011 5:53 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
Ways break too, it's just that editors sometimes remember to fix them
during their edit session (e.g. by copying the tags when they
dual-carriage a way). If we get people to fix the relations too, then
they won't break.
So how will we do this? I've
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
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,
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 fit
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
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
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com 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.
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,
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net 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
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Alan Mintz
alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net 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
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
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
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 know
: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:47:26
To: Alan Mintzalan_mintz+...@earthlink.net
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
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
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.
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
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
On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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,
Hi all,
To my understanding our tagging-standard for State Highways is [STATE]
[NUMBER]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#State_Highways
User Nathan Edgars is now changing all State Highway ref-tags in Arkansas
from AR ## to Hwy ##
Examples:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
To my understanding our tagging-standard for State Highways is [STATE]
[NUMBER]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#State_Highways
I agree that we should use the standard 2-letter state
/2011 6:05 am
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
Hi all,
To my understanding our tagging-standard for State Highways is [STATE] [NUMBER]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#State_Highways
User Nathan Edgars is now changing
On 8/20/11 7:52 AM, Peter Dobratz wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Henk Hofftoffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
To my understanding our tagging-standard for State Highways is [STATE]
[NUMBER]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#State_Highways
I agree that we should
Message---
From: Katie Filbert filbe...@gmail.com
Sent: 8/20/2011 9:24 am
To: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Aug 20, 2011, at 9:03 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:04 AM
Before I was too swamped with other stuff to do much OSM work, I was
using AR XX and OK XX. We've had this discussion before, though. My
contention is and was that the state prefix is necessary because there
are cases of ways belonging to two different networks in (not
physically, but
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 07:52 -0400, Peter Dobratz wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
To my understanding our tagging-standard for State Highways is [STATE]
[NUMBER]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#State_Highways
I
On 8/20/2011 12:01 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
What about another field for the network. For instance US:UT:SR for
Utah State Routes then the ref tag will be just the number. I'd like
to put it all into the ref field, but the renderers just don't parse
this field and render the whole string.
On 8/20/2011 6:04 AM, Henk Hoff wrote:
User Nathan Edgars is now changing all State Highway ref-tags in
Arkansas from AR ## to Hwy ##
False. I'm using Hwy x on ways that lacked ref tags.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 07:52 -0400, Peter Dobratz wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
To my understanding our tagging-standard for State Highways is [STATE]
[NUMBER]
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 12:16 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
I'd say the first order of business is to create a listing of what
each state uses, whether it be SR 123 or VA 123.
I also do some work on open-source software projects. When you add new
code, you at least make it _consistent_ with what's
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 12:16 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Because of the international nature of this project, we need to include
the country as well.
Whatever we do, can we please have a vote on it? I know votes aren't
To: OSM Talk US talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 12:16 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
Because of the international nature of this project, we need to include
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.
So how do you distinguish California from Canada? Or Delaware
of ref-tag on state highways
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.
So how do you distinguish
On 8/20/2011 1:29 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
From: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
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
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 09:29 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 12:16 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
I'd say the first order of business is to create a listing of what
each state uses, whether it be SR 123 or VA 123.
I also do some work on open-source software projects. When you add
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 13:39 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 8/20/2011 1:29 PM, Metcalf, Calvin (DOT) wrote:
From: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com
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
On 8/20/2011 1:50 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 13:39 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Meaning? How would you add more detail? US:MA:2? US:FL:ORA:535? UK:GB:M1?
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
Exactly my point. Great Britain
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
- Val -
We're not here to dictate what the rest of the world needs to do. It's about
uniformity within a country. Otherwise you're just
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8/20/2011 1:50 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
Exactly my point. Great Britain is fine with ref=M1 despite there being an
M1 in many
/2011 2:13 pm
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of ref-tag on state highways
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/20/2011 1:50 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide
On 8/20/2011 2:13 PM, Henk Hoff wrote:
The difference with the UK example is that there is a consistency: M1 =
M1. In the case of Arkansas we're talking about AR 26, Hwy 26 and
possibly in the future also 26. All being a ref for the same State
Highway. That is the problem.
I agree with this,
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
- Val -
We're not here to dictate what the rest of the world
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Henk Hoff toffeh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Val Kartchner val...@gmail.com wrote:
And once we set our standard here in the US, how do we get it adopted
world-wide?
-
On 8/20/2011 2:41 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
I still see a lot of messages coming through about a network tag. This
tag is already used on route relations so I'm not sure why it is still
being discussed. The ref=* tag on ways is primarily just duplicating
data from the relation and tagging for the
On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
with because their highway system is simpler. All I'm after in this
case is data consistency for the US. Maybe we can sit down over a beer
at SoTM next month and fix this once and for all? :)
Let's do! Who is going
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2011-08-20 14:24 -0400]:
I agree with this, and will abide by any reasonable consistent convention.
The wiki has long recommended using the two-letter state abbreviation, a
space, and the number. Is there any problem with continuing to use this
approach?
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 14:56 -0400, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com [2011-08-20 14:24 -0400]:
I agree with this, and will abide by any reasonable consistent convention.
The wiki has long recommended using the two-letter state abbreviation, a
space, and the number. Is
On 8/20/2011 2:56 PM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com [2011-08-20 14:24 -0400]:
I agree with this, and will abide by any reasonable consistent convention.
The wiki has long recommended using the two-letter state abbreviation, a
space, and the number. Is there any
On 8/20/2011 3:29 PM, Val Kartchner wrote:
Because some states officially designate the road as SR-26, for
instance.
Not to mention states like Texas, which have, for example:
State Highway (SH) 121
Loop 12
Spur 408
Beltway 8
Farm to Market Road (FM) 1960
Park Road (PR) 27
and probably a few
On Sat, 2011-08-20 at 09:32 -0500, Toby Murray wrote:
I have noticed that Mapquest prefers to only display numbers in their
state highway shields and they are actively looking for state postal
codes and stripping them off. So apparently the convention of using
state postal codes is well
I created a table of most of the different state-level route markers
(not counting West Virginia's county routes, which are actually
state-maintained): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:NE2/routes
This can be used as a basis for a table of abbreviations.
71 matches
Mail list logo
