Edited the page to clarify, but if you think it needs more discussion I'm happy to do that as well! Also I think the page could do with some clarifying diagrams at this point...Anyone good at that?
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > 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/ -- 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