I'm curious how this proposal works with roads like the northern section of
the Muskogee Turnpike, which officially runs North towards Tulsa, and
East towards Muskogee, the road's two terminii.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.comwrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at
The main thing I haven't looked into yet is the validation checks. Who
knows which validation checks are run on relations in JOSM and/or iD
to ensure 'unbroken-ness' and perhaps other things?
The only tool I know to do this in a useful way is the OSM Relation
Analyzer
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
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
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Peter Davies peter.dav...@crc-corp.comwrote:
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
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote:
For example: way X pointing east is marked in relation Y as east
(presumably we could assume that east = forward and the opposite cardinal
direction west is backward). User reverses way X. Now the relation role is
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
Matijn, James,
Like Saikrishna, I am in favor of using the colon or pipe symbol rather
than the semi-colon, for reasons that Martijn originally outlined. However,
Martijn then changed his mind, which to my thinking seems a pity. Is there
any chance that you could be persuaded to change it back,
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US
State
highways.
Hmm yes, on second thought, a second key on role members may not be so
straightforward ;) How silly of me to suggest such a thing.
Let's keep things pragmatic then and let me suggest
good at all.)
-James
From: m...@rtijn.org
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:16:54 -0800
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US
State
highways.
Hmm yes, on second thought, a second key on role
: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US
State
highways.
Martijn,
How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just
for
completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need
I, personally, am in favor of using the colon rather than the
semicolon, for the reasons Martijn outlined a few emails back.
Saikrishna Arcot
On Thu 19 Dec 2013 03:23:53 AM IST, James Mast wrote:
I have no problems going with either : or ; for the separator for
unsigned segments of highways
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US
State
highways.
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Martijn,
How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this
just
Hi,
* Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org [131218 20:46]:
I am having second thoughts on the colon separator for
role=north:unsigned. The colon separator seems to be more common in
keys, like lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=2 etc. while the semicolon
or pipe seem to be more prevalent to separate
I have no problems going with either : or ; for the separator for unsigned
segments of highways in the role area.
What does everybody else think? As this shouldn't be decided by just two
people. We do still need the consensuses of [talk-us] before any mass changing
of relations happen.
Paul - I believe we should go with what has been adopted the most -
this has been a leading argument in my thinking about this: the data
dictates and in this case indicates that the member role is the
preferred place for the cardinal directions overall. I don't really
see how the parent / child
: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US
State
highways.
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Martijn,
How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this
just
for
completely
a way that's part of a relation yet, which
isn't good at all.)
-James
From: m...@rtijn.org
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:16:54 -0800
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
Hmm yes
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:41 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:
Also, I have noticed you've been doing some editing for the Highway
Directions In The United States wiki page [1] and mention the role =
north;south idea for single carriageways so that the routes could tell
people
and their rendering of highway shields
based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a : might work (role =
north:unsigned).
-James
From: m...@rtijn.org
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways
Of Martijn van Exel
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:04 PM
To: Kam, Kristen -(p)
Cc: James Mast; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but members only
exist
on normal ways
(look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref
tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a : might work (role = north:unsigned).
-James
From: m...@rtijn.org
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US
Hi James,
I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
can add a paragraph to the wiki page
I think the unsigned_ref practice is so common here that we should
just keep that practice. Perhaps also a good one to document on the
wiki. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
may not be the best place for it unless we want to make this page
cover the
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:57 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the current
status-quo for the ways using at all times the ref unsigned_ref tags
(see I-394 example below).
In your example with I-394 and US-12, if you
Richard - true. It's sort of a chicken vs egg situation. As long as
there is no clear use case for one or the other, both practices will
remain in use. That's why I was so excited to see work continue on the
shield rendering which uses the refs on the relations. As I mentioned,
at Telenav we also
I just created a stub for the signed / unsigned paragraph on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
- however, the {{Tag}} template does not support the inclusion of a |
as far as I can see.. Please feel free to expand / edit.
On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:25 AM,
On 12/5/13 12:17 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
For what it's worth, at Telenav we have started relying solely on the
relation refs when it comes to route numbers. The way refs just seem
so cumbersome to maintain, and make for a lot of redundant
information. This is the stuff that relations were
2013/12/5 Martijn van Exel m...@rtijn.org
I think the unsigned_ref practice is so common here that we should
just keep that practice. Perhaps also a good one to document on the
wiki.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
may not be the best place for it
: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
Hi James,
I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
practice to use
, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Martijn van Exel
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
Martijn,
How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just for
completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add
: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
Martijn,
How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes/no (or is this just for
completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
into the main tags
Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Martijn van Exel
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
Martijn,
How would you suggest using the role:signed = yes
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.
2013/11/30 Peter Davies peter.dav...@crc-corp.com
So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12. For my applications I'd
prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to track the overlaps (which we
and our 10 state DOT customers call double banding). But if you also want
to suppress
On 11/30/13 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2013/11/30 Peter Davies peter.dav...@crc-corp.com
mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com
So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12. For my
applications I'd prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to
track the overlaps (which
: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
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
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:39 AM, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.comwrote:
If you want to see an example, download US-30's WV relation [2] into JOSM
and change the cardinal roles all back to forward. You can then see the
value of those splits in relation analysis inside of JOSM that the
On 11/30/13 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast
rickmastfa...@hotmail.com mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the
current status-quo for the ways using at all times the ref
We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so
we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments
that are hidden.
Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and
US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while
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
On 01:11 2013-11-27, Peter Davies wrote:
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
You mean that in the relation editor, you would be able to see the
same split between north / south and east / west that you currently
see for forward/backward? (like here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dwi2gx8tixsuva2/Screen%20Shot%202013-11-26%20at%209.25.08%20AM.jpg
)
Yes, that makes sense to me. I
://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/5109
- James
From: m...@rtijn.org
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 09:26:27 -0700
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
You mean that in the relation editor, you would be able
There is some discussion going on over on the wiki page I created on
this topic:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
Mostly dealing with how to prevent redundant relations where the
numbered route is a bidirectional road (i.e. there are no separate OSM
On 11/26/2013 01:58 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
There is some discussion going on over on the wiki page I created on
this topic:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
Mostly dealing with how to prevent redundant relations where the
numbered route is a
So, nobody has a comment on my idea (from the 22nd) of getting JOSM to show
north/south or east/west splits in the relation editor to be displayed the same
way as the forward/backward gets shown already? I would try to do some coding
to allow that to happen in JOSM, but I don't know how to
Potlatch does let you reverse ways: click the direction-indicating arrow(s).
On 2013-11-21 7:03 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed
that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when
reversing a way. Neither does Potlatch
From: lordsu...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 03:27:21 -0500
To: marti...@telenav.com
CC: krist...@telenav.com; talk-us@openstreetmap.org; h...@telenav.cn;
vladim...@telenav.com; chr...@telenav.com
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways
This should go live pretty soon:
https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/pull/543
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.com wrote:
The patch has been merged into master and should make it into the next
iD release.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.comwrote:
Reading through this I see that most are in favor of avoiding dividing
relations more than necessary: no separate relations for directions,
especially not if the geometry is the same for both.
That leaves the
On Nov 18, 2013 7:24 PM, Evin Fairchild evindf...@gmail.com wrote:
Re the comment by Nathan: “I'm still confused as to why the consumers of
a relation can't use the forward/backward roles…” The forward/backward
roles only make sense on one-way roads.
Individual members of relations that are
I'm willing to extend this to any route whose endpoints are undivided.
Seems the problem we're ultimately dealing with are situations where a
route ends with a median of some type.
On Nov 18, 2013 2:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/11/18 Nathan Mills
The patch has been merged into master and should make it into the next
iD release.
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Martijn van Exel marti...@telenav.com wrote:
That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed
that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when
That is a really good and interesting point, Chris. I just confirmed
that iD leaves the north / south / east / west roles alone when
reversing a way. Neither does Potlatch (although Potlatch does not
seem to actually allow you to reverse a way, just to flip the oneway=
between 1 and -1).
At least
Try looking in the US:OK and US:OK:Turnpike networks. Pretty verigated mix
of divided, undivided and intermittently divided routes there.
On Nov 18, 2013 3:05 PM, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
As a meta comment. I have been trying to follow all of the US
route/shield
Hey all,
Reading through this I see that most are in favor of avoiding dividing
relations more than necessary: no separate relations for directions,
especially not if the geometry is the same for both.
That leaves the question of how to tag cardinal directions? As I said
before, I think the role
James,
This does warrant an explanation for sure. Kristen is one of my
colleagues here at Telenav and we discussed best editing practices for
cardinal direction information here internally. The plan was to take
the discussion to this list before proceeding on any kind of scale. I
managed this
Not a fan. It greatly complicates things for information that can either
be gleaned obviously or is a nice to have. Having 3+ relations for
something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the
exception edge case of a relation that starts or ends on a divided highway.
On Sun,
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Not a fan. It greatly complicates things for information that can either
be gleaned obviously or is a nice to have. Having 3+ relations for
something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the
I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the
forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring
completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a
super relation per road route even for undivided highways? Even for a
2013/11/18 Nathan Mills nat...@nwacg.net
I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the
forward/backward roles of the ways referenced therein rather than requiring
completely separate relations. Why do we need two or more relations plus a
super relation per road route
They're not at all hard to find in the US. I would wager that fewer than 50% of
the actual on the ground road routes in the US have any divided segment
whatsoever.
What exactly is captured by two relations that is not captured by one, however?
That's the part I'm not understanding. We have
.
-Compdude
From: Nathan Mills [mailto:nat...@nwacg.net]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 12:28 PM
To: OpenStreetMap U.S.
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US State
highways.
I'm still confused as to why the consumers of a relation can't use the
forward
Well, one of the main reasons I brought this up is because I've noticed another
user changing some relations from forward/backward to
west/east/south/north without discussing this here on talk-us. That user
would happen to be KristenK. This user has been doing this since the 11th at
least
I'm just curious, but what's everybody's opinion on this? I know it's
acceptable for the Interstates (some are setup this way, some aren't) since
they are all divided, but what about for US Highways and State Highways? I
know that we want to eventually have the cardinal directions in OSM for
On 11/17/13 10:30 AM, James Mast wrote:
Also, on a side note, do you guys think we should remove the symbol
tags in the relations from all the Interstates/US highways they show
up in at the same time?
not sure what i think about the relation splitting idea. but i do agree
that the
symbol tags
On 07:47 2013-11-17, Richard Welty wrote:
perhaps symbol can go on the list of tags that editors remove automagically.
I don't think it's a good idea to automatically remove symbol=. Even
though in the U.S. we've been using it mostly for URLs to Wikimedia
Commons images, the wiki [1]
On 11/17/2013 5:55 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote:
I don't think it's a good idea to automatically remove symbol=.
+1 - as a manually added tag, removing the tag would be destroying
hand-acquired data. And just because a known shield renderer doesn't
use it today, doesn't mean future renderers
69 matches
Mail list logo
