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 look at the way's tags [1], you > can see that US 12 is still mentioned, but under the tag of "unsigned_ref". > That's how we have to so it as too many other data users wouldn't understand > anything "special" in the normal "ref" tag on ways saying something is > unsigned. That's why the "east|unsigned" stuff would only work in the > relations.
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 designed for! > > Here's an example of what I did for US-19 Truck here in Pittsburgh which has > it's multiplex with I-279 & I-376 hidden (except for the small segment South > of the Fort Pitt Tunnels because of how the ramps are). First, here's the > relation for the "signed" poartion of the route [2], and here's the relation > for the entire route [3]. As you can see, on the entire route relation, I > have the "unsigned_ref" tag for the route number, while in the "signed" > relation, it has the normal "ref" tag with the route number. I had to do it > this way so that all the data users who use the relations for adding shields > didn't erroneously add the Truck US-19 shields to I-279/I-376. Sure, you > could say this is "tagging for the render", but it also is mapping the > ground truth since there are no US-19 Truck shields along those two > Interstates. This sign [4] on Southbound I-279 is the only mention of US-19 > Truck along the Interstates till it leaves I-376 just after the Fort Pitt > Tunnels. (NOTE: for those who don't know, US-19 Truck used to be mutliplexed > with just I-279 till I-279 was shortened to the Point in Downtown Pittsburgh > and I-376 was extended from that point over the Parkway West segment of > I-279 in 2009.) (Also another little history lesson here, but Pittsburgh's > US-19 Truck is the only "officially" approved Truck route with the AASHTO > and shows up in the logs.) > > So, if we all agree on how to handle short segments of unsigned highways in > relations, I could then re-combine the route into just one relation and tag > the unsigned ways as "role=north|unsigned" and "role=south|unsigned" along > the I-279/I-376 multiplexes. > > HOWEVER, on routes that are completely unsigned (like hidden I-124 in TN > [5]), we would just keep use the "unsigned_ref" tag in the relations as we > are currently doing since it doesn't have a signed segment. But I wouldn't > be totally opposed to doing it like the hidden segment of US-19 Truck > mentioned above inside of the relation. I think covering this in the role members would make most sense, because that seems to be where we're headed. My only concern is the use of the pipe character, which seems to defy general tagging practices which seem to dictate something like role:signed=yes/no (see my other email), but I could very well be wrong about that. > I hope this fully explains what I'm suggesting to do Peter and everybody > else. ;) It's crystal clear to me! -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
