Bonjour Martin,
Il me semble que les divers commentaires ont été assez clair. La communauté OSM
du Canada est assez mature pour gérer cela et n'avons pas besoin que Navteq
démarre un projet pour modifier ces données.
L'équipe Navteq a déja créé beaucoup de problèmes en ajoutant partout des
relations complexes pour un simple interdit de faire un virage en U. Quels
sont maintenant les objectifs de la tâche
More Overlapping Ways in CanadaTelenav OSM Integrity Checks's Project
A mon avis, vous devez discuter avec la communauté canadienne avant de
démarrer de tels projets. Svp interrompre cette tâche et venez en discuter.
Et quels sont vos objectifs pour les modifications vs la route Trancanadienne?
Un meilleur rendu sur la carte, des itinéraires dans les outils de navigation ?
Pourquoi ne pas simplement créer une relation de type route pour la route
Transcanadienne?
Pierre
Le mercredi 28 mars 2018 13 h 23 min 37 s HAE, Martijn van Exel
<m...@rtijn.org> a écrit :
Hi all,
My colleague Olivia will respond more in depth with some suggestions based on
your feedback. Thanks for giving our team's ideas some thought.
In the meantime, as I was writing a post about the new version of MapRoulette,
I thought I'd make a Challenge for misspelled Trans-Canada Highway names.
Please find it here: http://maproulette.org/mr3/browse/challenges/2955 .
There's only a little over 200 tasks, so that should be an easy thing to fix
together.
The Challenge is based on this Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/xoW
-- it's pretty easy to make your own Challenges based on your own Overpass
queries or GeoJSON files.
The diary post explaining MapRoulette is here:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/43596
Thanks,--
Martijn van Exel
m...@rtijn.org
On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, at 07:13, Begin Daniel wrote:
Andrew, Je ne crois pas que le fait que ces ‘contributeurs’ soient Roumains,
Javanais ou Américains soit à considérer. Ils nous ont consultés avant de faire
la modification et c’est parfait. Cependant, je suis entièrement en accord avec
ta réponse - laissez ça à la communauté canadienne!
(I do not believe that the fact these ‘contributors’ are Romanians, Javanese or
Americans is to be considered. They consulted us before making the change and
it's perfect. However, I fully agree with your answer - leave that to the
Canadian community!-)
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Andrew Lester <a-les...@shaw.ca>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:35:56 PM
To: Olivia Robu - (p)
Cc: talk-ca
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research
While standardization may be nice, it often won't be possible even within a
single country. As has already been discussed, there are differing conventions
in different provinces, so please don't try to apply a single plan to all
provinces. How the TCH is handled in OSM will vary depending on the province.
For example, in BC (and some other western provinces), the TCH carries the 1
ref. In some places where other ref'ed highways coincide with the TCH, the ref
is recorded as "ref=1;19", for example. There are places within cities where
the TCH runs on city roads with different names (e.g. Douglas Street in
Victoria), so those ways are named with the local name and the TCH name is
recorded in the alt_name or nat_name tag (a separate argument is which one of
these to use). An alternate name should never be added to the primary name in
brackets like proposed. That's exactly what the alt_name (and similar) tags are
for. There are also many places where Trans-Canada Highway is the official
local name of the road, like most of the highway in BC.
As for the correct spelling of the TCH, I think it would be fairly
uncontroversial to standardize the name to "Trans-Canada Highway" or "Route
Transcanadienne" where it's appropriate to use the TCH name, because those are
the official spellings. Any variants can be considered errors.
As for varying highway classifications, this is correct and to be expected.
Unlike the US interstate system, the Trans-Canada Highway network varies in
construction and importance all across the country, so the classification can't
be standardized to just motorway or trunk. There are sections where primary is
the most appropriate, and possibly even secondary in some places. Just on
Vancouver Island alone, the roads designated as the TCH vary from a six-lane
motorway all the way down to a two-lane effectively-tertiary road.
Since there will need to be a lot of local knowledge required for such a
project, I strongly recommend that this project not be undertaken by Telenav.
This is the kind of work that Canadians should be doing, being the most
familiar with the on-the-ground situation which will dictate how the highway is
handled in each province. The numerous past issues with Telenav's contributions
is also a factor that can't be ignored. Does it really make sense for a team of
Romanians with a history of questionable decisions to be making sweeping
changes to the Canadian national highway network? At least they've brought a
proposal to the community this time rather than just push forward with a faulty
plan like they have in the past. I'm still cleaning up after previous Telenav
projects in my area that added countless non-existent turn restrictions and
names and also removed valid data.
Andrew
Victoria, BC, Canada
From: "Olivia Robu - (p)" <olivia.r...@telenav.com>
To: "talk-ca" <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:20:16 AM
Subject: [Talk-ca] Trans-Canada Highway research
Hello,
The Telenav Map team has done some research on the status of the ways and
relations of Trans-Canada Highway.
Here are some conclusions from this research:
- The highway is formed from 30 routes;
- Every route has different names for the name tag, such as: street names,
other routes names or Trans-Canada highway name in different forms;
- The issue above is repeating for the ref tag;
- The name of Trans-Canada highway has more than one form (Trans-Canada
Highway, TransCanada Highway, Trans Canada Highway, etc);
- Another issue is the variety of names in other tags related to it (such
as: name:en, name:fr, alt_name, alt_name:en, alt_name:fr, nat_name);
- There are some routes that don’t have a route name only ref (5 routes);
- There are some routes that overlap:
- in Manitoba: - PTH 1 (MB Trans-Canada Highway) and Trans-Canada Highway
(Super);
- Yellowhead Highway and
PTH 16 (MB Trans-Canada Highway);
- in Alberta: Trans-Canada Highway (AB) and Trans-Canada Highway (Super);
- in British Columbia: - Trans-Canada Highway (BC, Super) and Trans-Canada
Highway;
- About 90% of these routes are broken;
- About 80% of these routes have highway value flip flop (motorway, trunk,
primary);
We propose to make some improvements to standardize all the routes. We would
like to get your thoughts and feedback on the following questions:
- What is the correct form for the name that appears in the way name tag?
For example: “Highway 417” is part of Trans-Canada Highway and has the name
value tag “Highway 417”. To resolve this issue, we would need to standardize
the ways’ name tag for all the provinces. The question is, should we modify the
way names in to “Trans-Canada Highway”, or should we insert the name
“Trans-Canada Highway” at the end of the name, like this: “Highway 417
(Trans-Canada Highway)”, or should we leave it like it is?
- Another issue is related to the official name of the highway. According to
our research the official name for Trans-Canada Highway is “Trans-Canada
Highway”. In our research we have found several forms of this name: TransCanada
Highway, Trans Canada Highway, etc. Should we change all the names to
“Trans-Canada Highway”?
- Another question is related to the priority of the names in the name value
tag and also for the ref tag. If we have a way that has a street name (“Old
Highway 16” or “North York River Road”) and two routes that overlap (ex:
Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 11). What is the name and the ref that should
appear in the way name tag and ref tag?
- In case of overlapping identical routes (ex: in Manitoba there is two
routes for Trans-Canada Highway). What should be the best approach?
- In case of highway value flip flop (motorway, trunk, primary), there are
several segments like this outside the cities (ex.: Route “Ontario Highway 17
(Blind River to North Bay) (ID 3739829)”, or Route “Trans Canada Highway 104”
(ID 1732797)). For areas outside the cities we propose to change the highway
value into motorway/trunk. What do you think about this issue?
We think that one approach to resolve the first problem could be to add
“Trans-Canada Highway” or “Highway 417 (Trans-Canada Highway)” to the way name
for all the routes, and the ref number correspondent to each route that forms
the Trans-Canada Highway.
We look forward to hearing your feedback and hope to improve the situation
together.
Here is the link to github ticket that we created:
https://github.com/TelenavMapping/mapping-projects/issues/57
Regards,
Olivia Robu
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
