Martijn, While spending the last three weeks comparing different methods of defining cardinal directions in member roles, I noticed that iD makes it hard to see which direction on a way is currently OSM forward. Potlach makes it easy, once you grasp what the arrow shows. JOSM does it less intuitively, but only if you have very sharp eyesight for tiny line and arrow diagrams.
When in iD I found myself turning on "oneway=yes" just so I could easily see which way was forward, and then turning it off again. It's ok as long as you remember to do it (turn it off with two clicks); otherwise it's very bad news. In the end I avoided iD and used Potlach to reduce this risk. iD is an accident waiting to happen for people (like me) who are tempted to play this questionable game. I've no clue how to change iD, sorry, or even to ask that a change be made, but if there were a way of making the << symbol rotate so that it showed the user OSM forward, as does Potlach 2, it would be awesome. Potlach 2 is of course easier to mess up in other ways, so an enhanced iD would be safer when people like me try to implement your idea that all the single carriageway ways on a route should be "fixed" so that they have OSM forward pointing in the same direction. (In my world, that direction should be the positive direction in which milepoints ought to increase, i.e., eastbound or northbound.) I "fixed" several routes in ID, MN and San Diego County as you suggested, and it's tidier when done and directional roles are assigned. However, I realized that occasionally it's impossible to do, at least in my world where OSM forward should also be route designator positive (increasing) milepoint direction. A two-way way can be eastbound and southbound on two different routes; or it can be northbound and westbound. One route requires it to point one direction, and the other, the opposite. So the rule can never be absolute. Nevertheless I like your scheme of aligning all the ways of a route so that the single carriageways' OSM forward all align with (hopefully) the route's eastbound or northbound direction. In most cases it can be done and it certainly makes it easier to see if a relation has all its cardinal roles correctly defined. Of course it's easier still to check mixed routes when single carriageways can be clearly distinguished from dual carriageway ways; but you've heard me on that topic already. Peter On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > Another update on this: following James's earlier suggestion that we > needed editor support for the n/s/e/w roles with way direction > reversal and (in the case of JOSM) the relation editor, I got some dev > time at Telenav to get the necessary JOSM patches done. I already > submitted the iD patch myself (which should be live by now). > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > > Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but > > members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not > > really a model for tags on members. > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) <krist...@telenav.com> > wrote: > >> Hi All: > >> > >> > >> > >> I have a question: Why can’t there be member tag values? There are tag > >> values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> > >> > >> Kristen > >> > >> > >> > >> --- > >> > >> > >> > >> OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK > >> > >> > >> > >> From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfa...@hotmail.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM > >> To: Martijn van Exel > >> Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >> > >> > >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & > State > >> highways. > >> > >> > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> 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 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. > >> > >> -James > >> > >>> From: m...@rtijn.org > >>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700 > >>> To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > >>> CC: talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & > State > >>> highways. > >>> > >>> Hi James, > >>> > >>> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense > >>> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging > >>> practice to use role:signed = yes/no? > >>> > >>> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you > >>> can add a paragraph to the wiki page > >>> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States > >>> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we > >>> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;) > >>> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg > >>> > >>> Best > >>> Martijn > >>> > >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a > >>> > route > >>> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that > have > >>> > segments that are hidden. > >>> > > >>> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's > on > >>> > I-94 > >>> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. > Both > >>> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said > >>> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till > >>> > when > >>> > they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag > the > >>> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This > >>> > would > >>> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields. > >>> > They > >>> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the > shields > >>> > along that way. > >>> > > >>> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" > tag > >>> > in > >>> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an > >>> > example). > >>> > > >>> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two > >>> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden? > >>> > > >>> > -James > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
