So many conversations at once; this list-digest medium proves limiting at
times, even often.
Helpful old-fashioned aids here might be sketch boards where small-group (two,
three people?) sub-projects can spin out and a main thread group where someone
explains what s/he sees going on and how we
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 3:46 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
>> > now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 14:33 Richard Welty wrote:
> On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
> > now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is rendering
> > refs from relations. Magic Earth is rendering refs
On Aug 24, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer
> will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to
> expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways.
Evin, we agree to disagree
On 8/24/18 3:15 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while
> now. Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is rendering
> refs from relations. Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations.
> Pretty sure Mapbox and Rand McNally are
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 13:41 Evin Fairchild wrote:
> Anyway, to get back on topic, I don't agree with tagging the ref tags on
> link roads, as long as it's part of the route relation. I have seen
> instances, though, where people tag what should be a motorway link as a
> motorway when a route
This is a criticism I've had about the Standard renderer for a while now.
Andy Allan's rendering refs from relations. Osmand is rendering refs from
relations. Magic Earth is rendering refs from relations. Pretty sure
Mapbox and Rand McNally are as well.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018, 12:03 Evin
Hey, I totally agree that we need to fix the rendering so that the renderer
will show ref tags on route relations. But until then, it's impractical to
expect people to avoid putting the ref tags on the ways. I do agree with
not tagging for the renderer, but I was merely pointing out that it's
Agree with that, Evin. Unfortunately I think there are still quite a few
countries where route relations are not as widely used / accepted (I remember
the UK bring among them? Perhaps someone can do an overpass query to visualize)
so unless we get everyone on board with them we're likely stuck
The only way you can get people to stop putting reg tags on ways and only
put them on relations is if the renderer actually rendered reg tags from
relations. Currently it doesn't do this, so it's impractical for people to
do what you're suggesting. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, don't tag for the
The ref=* tag on ways is already 100% redundant if the way is already a
part of the appropriate route relations and should be phased out so ref can
be used to actually describe the way's ref, where applicable.
Also, can we kill this dinosaur entirely already? Route relations have
been a widely
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 20:04 -0400]:
Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a Future
I-26 shield:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/rickmastfan67/Interstates/NC/I-26/Img_2043s.jpg
Alright. I'll add Future Interstate shields to my
How about...
network=US:I
modifier=Future
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 20:04 -0400]:
Yep, here's picture proof that I personally took a few years ago of a
Future I-26 shield:
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]:
I do hope that the render will avoid using the Super relations.
My rendering doesn't use super relations (mostly[0]), because it
doesn't need to; the per-state relations contain all of the tags
needed for it to get the right
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:28:12 -0400
From: phi...@pobox.com
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
* James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com [2013-06-22 07:22 -0400]:
the segment of I-26 between I-240 and Exit #9 is still considered to
be a Future Interstate
Check the Farm-to-market page on Wikipedia.
On Jun 19, 2013 11:00 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
as two separate types.
On Jun 19,
I checked the Wikipedia page and couldn't find anything. Could you do me a
favor and point me to the part of the article you're referring to, and/or
the cited source?
I'd rather solve this without more mailing list drama, if possible.
On Jun 20, 2013 9:06 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org
Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer
determines which shield to put on the road.
Tagging for the renderer, grumble grumble.
On Jun 20, 2013 9:23 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:
* Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com [2013-06-20 09:26 -0700]:
Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
sense to keep them separate because that is how the shield renderer
determines which shield to put on the road.
My shield renderer is pretty flexible. I can
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:15:02 -0400
From: phi...@pobox.com
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] ref tags
* Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com [2013-06-20 09:26 -0700]:
Also, even if it were the case that they were the same network, it makes
sense to keep them
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fmfacts.htm Texas refers to the network
as Farm/Ranch to Market or Farm to Market, except Ranch Road 1 and NASA
Road 1 (both of which are part of single-route networks, because Texas).
The last fact I would correct to say currently since Oklahoma formerly
had
Martijn van Exel m at rtijn.org writes:
Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
states, there are no State Route relation pages.
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also)
NE2 finished Ohio's route relations at such speed
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
states, there are no State Route relation pages. (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations#See_also
)
I'm
Yeah, I'm guessing interstates and US routes are mostly done. The things
that might be missing is bannered routes (truck, business, etc). I suspect
that state highways are going to be a patchwork. I'm pretty sure I've got
most of the major and a good number of minor Kansas highways done. This
wiki
Curious if you guys are using US:KS for the network, which would fit the
pattern or not? I ask because on the way's ref tags, some people are
correctly using KS, but others are just using K.
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I'm guessing
Following up on this as a reminder, let's get together at 5PM Pacific /
8PM Eastern to see how we can make this happen. Again, I am willing to put
in time, but I will need help. I prefer a Google hangout but IRC works for
me as well.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Martijn van Exel
Yes, the relations are all tagged correctly with network=US:KS. As for the
ref on the ways, anything I've touched is KS. There was another user who
did a bunch as K-xx for a while but I think I convinced him that we should
go with KS and put K-xx in a loc_ref tag or something like that.
Toby
On
Wondering if there may be a better way to collaborate on route maintenance,
a way to see if routes are being maintained / created per area, and by
whom... Oh wait, that would be the groups feature we are working on[1].
[1] https://github.com/osmlab/datadashboard/issues/1 and
Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads
haven't been completed and there are quite a lot of them. I made a Mapcraft
to help add relations to them all: http://mapcraft.nanodesu.ru/pie/269
I've made a little progress in the Texas Panhandle but we definitely need
Curious if the network for RM and FM is consistently US:TX:FM for both,
since they're both part of the same network.
On Jun 19, 2013 10:52 AM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately most of Texas has been done, but unfortunately the FM/RM roads
haven't been completed and there
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
Following up on this as a reminder, let's get together at 5PM Pacific /
8PM Eastern to see how we can make this happen. Again, I am willing to put
in time, but I will need help. I prefer a Google hangout but IRC works for
I've been doing a lot of work on the FM and RM roads already. The RM's should
all be done already. The FM roads are done for everything west of I-35, except
for the Panhandle, where I was just straightening and not adding relations.
Anything I've worked on Everything is done generally north
It's US:TX:FM for FM roads, and US:TX:RM for RM roads. There may be little
to no overlap between RM and FM, and they may serve the same purpose, but I
see no need to go through them all and change all of them to one network.
They are different networks according to the state of Texas.
On Jun 19,
I'm pretty confident (but with G+ you never know) that this is the event
link:
https://plus.google.com/events/casn33o1v25faad4jvocqdu1jg4
Info on the actual hangout link should appear there shortly before we start.
Martijn
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com
TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the same network
(farm to market), and no RM and FM have the same number. They just change
the sign to RM when the route primarily passes through ranches instead of
farms. According to TxDOT, there is exactly one Ranch Road, being RR 1,
Does the Wikipedia bit have a cited source? I can understand that being
true; I just want to verify. The Texas Highway Designation Files list them
as two separate types.
On Jun 19, 2013 8:25 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
TxDOT is cited in Wikipedia as documenting them as being the
Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields and
concurrencies? The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been working
for years. Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for years before
that.
Stop waiting for the London tile server to give a
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Why is the US local chapter not running a tile server that renders shields
and concurrencies? The tagging has been stable forever. The code has been
working for years. Even a hacked demo ( now offline) was running for
Richard - we were discussing this topic during the mappy hour yesterday and
came to the same conclusion! We should have a shields style. What needs to
be done? I am willing to put in time but can't connect all the dots myself.
I will loop in Ian and see if we can get this running.
On Tue, Jun
Oh there you are Ian :)
Well I guess I am stepping up but I will need help!
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org wrote:
Richard - we were discussing this topic during the mappy hour yesterday
and came to the same conclusion! We should have a shields style. What
* Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com [2013-06-18 08:07 -0500]:
Because no one's stepped up to do it!
Okay, I should probably put my toes in here. I can spend this weekend
cleaning up my code (for http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/ ) and maybe
try to get it running on the US server, if there's
* Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com [2013-06-17 22:19 -0400]:
If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way.
Note that the conventions for ref tags are different for relations and
ways. A way
I did spend some time trying to set up Phil's code myself for eventual
deployment to the osm-us server. I got a good chunk of the way there but
ran into some problems. I'll see if I can put some more time into it now
that I'm home again.
Toby
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Richard Weait
Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to
be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
I did spend some
* Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need to
be done. I can't make tonight but tomorrow early evening (like, 6PM MDT)
would work. Ian, Phil, Toby, are you around then?
That's 8pm for me, which might
Great. I am just catching up on SOTM US talks and watching yours. Enjoying
it a lot!
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Phil! Gold phi...@pobox.com wrote:
* Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [2013-06-18 10:40 -0600]:
Perhaps we can get together on IRC sometime soon and see what would need
to
A related question - do we have a clear idea of route relation completeness
in the US? Looking at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway_Relations
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can
On 6/18/2013 1:21 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
This look pretty well organized, but I know how wikis can be deceiving
like that.
Also, how is the situation on the state level? I notice that for some
states, there are no State Route relation pages.
Hi,
If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If
the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its
in a relation or not.
Would that break anybody?
Thanks
Jason.
On Mon, Jun 17,
On 6/17/13 10:19 PM, Jason Remillard wrote:
Hi,
If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If
the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its
in a relation or not.
Would that
Kind of looking forward to that, too, since it would allow more accurately
mapping situations like Oregon, where State Highways are the original
numbers used on trailblazers and what ODOT refers to roads it's roadways
as, as opposed to the State Routes that usually traverse multiple state
Thank you, Paul: not only do I stand corrected, I am glad to be
corrected (improved, really) in this way. (I did know, in fact, the
number to be greater than fifty something.) I only planted the
seed, and you more fully grew the tree of this particular truth. I,
too, am not sure of a more
On 2/13/2013 6:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
Considering that there's nearly 40 in the area within relation 161645
(Oklahoma), I'd honestly be surprised if there aren't at least
50-something just within states starting with O.
AFAIK, all of the reservations in Oklahoma were allotted before
Not reservations as such, but there are tribal boundaries that last to this
day. Osage County/Nation isn't the only one. Heck, just drive around
Tulsa, and you'll see Entering the Cherokee/Muscogee (Creek)/Osage Nation
signs bisecting the city into thirds centered roughly at the
244/412/51/LL/64
On 2013-02-11 11:30 AM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk edit of ref=* tags
to conform them with the quasi-standard of two-letter USPS state
prefix + space + route number (+ one-char suffix)?(+ space + any long
modifiers) but didn't want things to devolve
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
[...]
What this means is that ref tags (used at county, state and national levels)
are and should be human readable, and route relations are a more machine
parsable data structure for logically assembling together the
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:18 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote:
In other words, New York is just as sovereign as is New Zealand, South
Dakota is as much a nation-state as South Korea. I am not an attorney, but
I can read. This makes for 51 independent jurisdictions: the fifty
On 2013-02-12 11:18 AM, stevea wrote:
The SR plague is well-named. Virtually nobody in California
colloquially says State Route, except the California Highway Patrol
filling out tickets and Caltrans -- our California DOT -- on highway
engineering blueprints. I have (slowly) begun to back out
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in
Florida, a lot seem to be missing the context that let you know what network
they're a part of.
I'd actually been kicking around proposing a bulk
The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure.
I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from
NE2.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Someone with local knowledge might want to look over the ref=* tags in
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:45 PM, Clay Smalley claysmal...@gmail.com wrote:
The SR and SH designations were mostly put in by NE2, IIRC. Go figure.
I'm personally okay with this mass edit, but expect a lot of hate mail from
NE2.
FWIW I did get a pair of emails from NE2 that says, in part, he
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote:
He does reiterate the point it would lead to long ref tags that would
conflict with Mapnik's limitations. He also argues that it would make
the Mapnik rendering erroneous
Tagging for the renderer.
As far as the blade
Not sure if they read these, but
https://github.com/MapQuest/MapQuest-Mapnik-Style/issues
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 8:25 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:
Anyways, we really need to get MapQuest to render by relations (where
available on a way) and only using a way ref's tags when
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 9:25 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Anyways, we really need to get MapQuest to render by relations
??? Wait for MapQuest? Why? Why aren't you rendering your own and
sending them patches? You can render a couple of small states on any
old laptop. Fix
So it's clear from the responses thatthere are differing needs here:
Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are states where "SR" is more easily understood.
At the conceptual level, the same string should not
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Craig Hinners cr...@hinnerspace.com wrote:
Of course, it would be desirable to have consensus on the syntax of the
conceptual-level tag, be it highway:network:us:fl=123, or
highway:network=us:fl:123, or highway=fl:123, but that's a
diversion from the crux of the
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:
route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging
for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations.
Richard Weait has done some work on this:
http://weait.com/content/badges-badges
On 4/9/2011 8:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
* At the conceptual level, the same string should not be used to
represent the networks of multiple states, and some state-unique
ID, be it the USPS two-letter abbreviation or otherwise, is needed.
Why? We use the same prefixes for many
On 4/9/2011 10:21 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
This explicitly split out network information should be present in
route relations. The ref=* tag on ways right now is mostly tagging
for the renderer because current renderers don't use route relations.
And tagging for redundancy, since relations break
On 04/08/2011 01:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State
Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44. The reason I'm
asking is because I've seen several people
On 04/08/2011 02:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
I think ref=OK 20;AR 42 (or equally ref=AR 42;OK 20) is the appropriate
tag there.
Though a ref with two different states involved is fairly rare, about
the only spot I can think of where that would apply offhand would be
WA 500 if they ever start
On 04/08/2011 03:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags
For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states,
I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go
On 04/08/2011 02:11 PM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be
settled once
and for
On 04/08/2011 07:16 PM, Toby Murray wrote:
Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive.
Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on
Kansas highways as K-xx which is how people usually pronounce it.
Street signs usually just have the number inside of
On 04/09/2011 07:41 AM, Craig Hinners wrote:
So it's clear from the responses that there are differing needs here:
* Due to regional differences, displaying the two-letter USPS code
in the shield is not necessarily desirable. For example, there are
states where SR is more
On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for State
Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.
There's a third way: use the correct abbreviation. So Florida, if a
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be settled
once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used for
State
Highways on ways (not relations)? PA-44 or 44.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 02:03:25PM -0500, Nathan Mills wrote:
On Fri, 08 Apr 2011 14:11:49 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 2:00 PM, James Mast wrote:
I just thought I would throw this out there so this can be
settled once
and for all. Which ref tag setup do you think should be used
On 4/8/2011 3:03 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
The SR naming leads to ambiguity as to which state's route number is
being referenced.
Just like name=Main Street leads to ambiguity as to which city's main
street it is.
I understand the overlap between 20 and 42, but here the solution is to
make
On 4/8/11 3:35 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Shouldn't the ref tag be an unambiguous reference to a given road in a
route network? Clearly, one should not put name=MI XX on a Michigan
state route (unless there is a road sign reading MI XX), but ref=MI
XX provides said unambiguous reference and can
On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags
For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other states,
I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make it go
away en masse.
On 4/8/11 4:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags
For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For other
states, I usually don't tag without a prefix. I certainly don't make
it go
On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 4:18 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/8/11 4:02 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 3:58 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
i know NE2 likes to make the prefix go away for state ref tags
For Florida, yes, since that's the statewide standard. For
On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing?
this changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229
from 7/2010, in which the ref tag for
On 4/8/11 4:50 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/8/2011 4:46 PM, Richard Welty wrote:
On 4/8/11 4:26 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Do you have an example of that outside my first few months of editing?
this changeset:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5223229
from 7/2010, in which
Yeah... consensus would be great but seems to be rather elusive.
Here is a case in point. Another mapper has been tagging ways on
Kansas highways as K-xx which is how people usually pronounce it.
Street signs usually just have the number inside of the sunflower logo
without any kind of lettering
86 matches
Mail list logo