I am having second thoughts on the colon separator for role=north:unsigned. The colon separator seems to be more common in keys, like lanes:forward=2, lanes:backward=2 etc. while the semicolon or pipe seem to be more prevalent to separate values. The pipe character seems to be more widely used when there is an ordered set of elements, like lanes:maxspeed=40|60|60 to indicate speed limits for lanes 1,2,3 respectively, whereas the semicolon seems to be used as a more generic separator like destination=Salt Lake City;Reno. (Even there you could argue that there is an ordering, the first element would appear first on the sign, the second one below that.)
So I changed the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States to reflect this and propose the semicolon approach: role=north;unsigned. OK? On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > 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/ -- 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
