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 we go with role=north:unsigned for unsigned sections. I don't particularly like the ; because it suggests a list of things that are of similar nature (like apple;pear;mango) whereas a colon to me suggests a further scoping which is what this is. So role=north / role=west / role=south / role=east for relation members to indicate cardinal directions, and role=north:unsigned / role=west:unsigned / role=south:unsigned / role=east:unsigned for unsigned segments, unless the entire numbered route is unsigned, in which case unsigned_ref would do the job. Any more insights and comments? Thanks Martijn On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire > overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think > to do it. That's why I suggested doing the ";" or "|" because data > consumers already know how to deal with the ";" at least in the ref tags 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 & 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 unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info >> > into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep >> > the >> > direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the >> > relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that >> > the >> > route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a >> > dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 >> > Trunk >> > on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still >> > in >> > one piece. >> >> My idea was to just use >> >> role=north/east/south/west >> >> for the regularly signposted sections and >> >> role=north/east/south/west >> role:signed=no >> >> for the hidden sections. >> >> It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in >> terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in >> check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance. >> >> > >> > If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe >> > use >> > the ";" or "," instead? I could see the ";" working just as good as the >> > "|". >> >> I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more >> specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and >> access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make >> the most sense. >> >> > >> > I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" >> > instead >> > of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one >> > covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag. Annoying and >> > easily >> > broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the >> > exact >> > same route on some segments. >> >> I agree 100%. >> -- >> Martijn van Exel >> http://openstreetmap.us/ -- 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