James, all, Work on JOSM is underway, and should be finished by the end of this week. I don't think I fully understand what you're trying to convey about the local/express lanes, but I think we should ensure that both JOSM and iD support cardinal directions with any :extension.
I did make significant edits to the wiki page to capture the discussion and move ambiguous parts out of the way, but the north;south bit is not mine and I actually don't think it's a great idea - can't we just have role=north being concurrent with the OSM way direction? Or is that an oversimplification? Martijn On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:41 AM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Looks good to me Martin. I'm game with the "role = north:unsigned" tagging > for unsigned segments. > > Now all we would need to do is get JOSM to show the cardinal directions the > same way in the relation editor like "forward/backward" so that you can > verify a route is all there and there are no gaps (unless there is one for > real like I-49 currently has in LA since they are extending it). And on > this subject it brings up an interesting problem. What to do when a highway > has C/D lanes that are part of the main highway (like the 401 in Toronto, > Ontario, Canada). I know a few Interstates have these, like I-80 & I-95 in > NJ. There should be a way to have something like "role = east:express" & > "role = east:local" in a directional relation (I fully support Interstates > to have separate relations for each direction on 2di's; but on 3di's they > should stay one relation unless it's like a 30+ mile route like I-476/I-376 > here in PA) and have JOSM's relation editor show a split in the highway so > you can verify there are no gaps in those areas for the relation. > > 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 which direction the way goes. I think that might still need a little > more discussion here on [talk-us] before we attempt to implement it and > mention it on that page (maybe have a vote for that part on the talk > page??). I personally think it could work, but we would need all of the > editors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch2) to have support to be able to reverse those > roles correctly if somebody reverses the way. Can't allow those to get > messed up once added. (On a side note, iD doesn't alert you if you delete 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 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 -- 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
