On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Phil! Gold <phi...@pobox.com> wrote: > * Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> [2012-04-03 10:21 -0400]: >> - Secondaries (network US:VA:secondary) don't seem to be rendering at >> all, and the fallback shields aren't showing up even where there are >> ref tags (just seems to be using Mapnik style). Simple rule for VA: >> if the ref >= 600, or it has a letter in it, it's a secondary (except >> 785 and 895, which are signed primary). 1 <= 599 are primary. > > When we looked at the database, we saw some secondary routes tagged as > US:VA and some as US:VA:Secondary. Since there didn't seem to be any > overlap in the numbering, we chose to only look for the US:VA network and > render either a primary or secondary shield based on the number. I assume > you live in Virginia. What do you, as a resident, think of this rendering > choice?
As NE2 correctly points out, the number may not be the best guide. VA secondaries are a lot more like CR systems in other states or the secondary system in Missouri, in that the numbering doesn't carry between counties/cities (e.g. there are probably almost* as many SR 600s as there are counties in the state). My tagging has been to use US:VA:secondary to avoid ambiguity, with separate relations for each distinct secondary using is_in:county for disambiguation. * almost because technically Henrico and Arlington counties maintain their own "secondaries," although I think Henrico signs its CRs using VDOT secondary shields. > Separately, Mapnik ought to be using the fallback shields when it doesn't > place one of our shields. It might be getting confused by the presence of > the US:VA:secondary route even though there aren't any shields for it. > I'll look into it. Cool. >> - The US 460 business route doesn't seem to be getting shields. > > We're looking for US Business routes under a network of US:US:Business. > It probably isn't tagged that way. Once it is, it'll show up. Yeah, probably. When the database is live again I'll look into it. >> I-26 in TN seems to be missing: >> http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=11&lat=36.35713&lon=-82.42503&layers=B0 > > The route relation has "I 26" in the ref tag. Once it's change to just > "26", it'll render properly (although it'll take until the next time we > run the cluster generating script after that change before it'll show up > in concurrencies). Ugh. When I wrote up http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tagging_with_relations my specific intent was that the ref tag was supposed to be bare to avoid renderers needing to parse/grep a bunch of crap to get the part they need to use on a generic shield design. There's no good reason to overload ref in relations with information that is already specifiable in an unambiguous fashion using network and/or modifier. For example, something asinine like ref="15 Loop" is just silly, because (a) in the field it is actually "Loop 15" and internally it's "SL 15" (and on the official TX tourist map it's just a 15 in a hexagon, like spurs, which are numbered as part of the same system - much like RM/FM share the same numbering system internally and get a rectangle on the tourist map) and (b) the renderer will want to slap "15" on a generic "Texas Loop" shield, or maybe just a generic "non-primary-network" shield, without trying to guess what things aren't part of the route number. So if you want my advice - which I'm sure you don't :) - stick with what you're doing and don't cave to this "let many flowers bloom" tagging for relations philosophy. We have enough of that crap with way-based ref already, to the point that they've degenerated into a hideous, unmaintainable, uninterperable mess (that Mapquest gets anything useful out of it is a tribute to their herculean patience with mapper quirkiness); no need to perpetuate it with relations too. Finally, if you get bored, I wouldn't mind seeing a more "commercial map" style rendering option more akin to what Mapquest is doing - e.g. using the US and I shields but just circles/lozenges for the (primary) state routes and squares/rectangles for secondaries/CRs/Texas weirdness. After what you've done so far that will probably be child's play. :) Chris _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
