Kerry You are right, of course, and those of us who make our living out of building such systems have to compromise continually between the needs of locals and the needs of visitors. Now that Apps are gradually replacing 511 web sites and phone systems we are personalizing traffic reports more and more. Users who share their current locations as well as their home and office locations can theoretically be given tailored location descriptions that emphasize local names and cross-streets (near to home) or what I call "fuzzy locations" such as "on ID 21, 20 miles north of Idaho City" when they are far away.
Handling that, though, is mainly our problem, and that of our competitors. We typically like to have route numbers and aliases like "I 290 (Eisenhower Expressway)" to serve both user groups. But we typically need one key route number, and not many. No-one wants to hear that I 465 is also US 31, US 36, US 40, US 52, IN 67, US 421, etc. Perhaps some people want to know that part of it is also I 74. My proposal doesn't take away any ref information (as it's all in the relations); it just helps us know what is the most important route designator (say, I 465). It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary designators in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one is presented first. We can easily ignore the less important numbers. But without a way ref (i.e., using only relation refs, as has been suggested) we have no way of knowing what is the most common route designator for that specific way. Peter On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Kerry Irons <irons54vor...@gmail.com>wrote: > There is a problem with this approach in that the locals might describe it > one way and visitors, with no local knowledge, will stick with route > numbers. When I visit Chicago I get confused by traffic radio because I > don't know the freeway names but I have no trouble navigating by map as > long > as the route numbers are shown on the map. Highway signage leans much more > heavily toward route numbers than names, and often show the multiple route > numbers. This is particularly key when someone is following a route number > to some more distant destination. When a map doesn't indicate that there > are multiple routes on the same piece of pavement it can be confusing to > "outsiders" trying to navigate through an area. > > > Kerry Irons > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 4:45 PM > To: Eric Fischer > Cc: Martijn van Exel; Richard Welty; OSM US Talk > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators > (multiple > overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept > > Eric > > Perhaps it would be ok still to code these few exceptions that are known > equally by two route designators as "US 1;US 9" in NJ or "US 12;US 18" in > WI, but to simplify the vast majority of routes where the secondary banding > is less important? My aim is to announce traffic problems the way the > locals do it. If they call it the 1-9 or the 12-18, that's fine with me. > We > could also add that as an alias (an OSM name) if it's widespread. > > As you say, for the INDOT 511 system (another of my concerns), on I 465 we > could safely skip US 31, US 36, US 40, US 52, IN 67, US 421, etc. It could > go either way on I 465;I 74 across the south side of the Indie Beltway, > depending on local practices. The nice thing about this proposal is that > the exceptions can still be allowed in the rare cases where they apply. > > I find that listening to radio station traffic messages is a great way to > discover how people name roads. Here in Portland, OR, I 84 between I 5 and > I 205 is invariably called the "Banfield" or Banfield Expressway" by OPB, > etc. It is never, ever called "US 30" or "I 84;US 30 (Banfield > Expressway)" > > Peter > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Eric Fischer <e...@pobox.com> wrote: > This would match how people usually talk about things like I-465 around > Indianapolis, ignoring all the other routes that are also routed along it, > but it doesn't work quite so well when there are co-signed routes that > persist for long distances where people refer to the paired name. I think > Highway 1-9 in New Jersey, which is both US 1 and US 9, is the main > example, > but Highway 12-18 in Madison, WI (US 12 and US 18) also comes to mind. > > Eric > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Peter Davies <peter.dav...@crc-corp.com> > wrote: > A further thought in favor of using the way ref tag simply to indicate the > "principal route designator", leaving any multi-banded secondary routes > that > share the way to be defined only in the relations, is that we would be > making the US more consistent with road numbering and mapping practices in > other countries. > > In the UK, for example, "multi-banding" does not occur because the > Department of Transport allows numbered roads to have breaks (gaps) where > they follow other routes. For example, the M62 from Liverpool to Leeds and > Hull no longer exists across the Manchester M60 Ring Motorway section. > Drivers follow M62 from Liverpool, then take the Manchester Ring Road M60, > and then pick up the M62 again across the Pennines to Leeds and Hull. In a > similar example on the primary route system, the A49 joins with the A5 > around the Shrewsbury bypass, and then separates and strikes off north > again > after a few miles. This approach is universal in the UK, and is also > standard practice in many other countries. > > In the UK and elsewhere, the shared section is identified by a single > "principal route designator". Important secondary UK designations can be > shown on green primary route signs, e.g., Oswestry A5; Leominster (A49). > This is interpreted as "A5 changing to A49" for Leominster. On UK maps of > all kinds, only A5 is marked on the common section. Thus, OSM currently > tags > ways on the common section simply with ref A5. We could do the same here > in > the US if we swapped out US 202;ME 11;ME 17;ME 100 for just US 202 in the > way ref. (As it happens, only US 202 IS currently coded on Western Avenue > in Augusta, and perhaps we should leave it that way?) > > I believe that US state DOT practices of multi-banding might be made more > user friendly if we could focus on the "principal designated route" in the > way ref tag. It doesn't really help many drivers to know that I 80 in > parts > of Wyoming is also US 30. My thoughts are that the Interstate system > rightly swamps out "noise" from older transcontinental routes that have > little travel significance in the 21st century. It could be that these > secondary sign shields are an unwarranted expense that may gradually fade > away. But those who still want to show secondary banding would be able to > do so using the route relations. > > We would also be eliminating the practice of cramming multiple data > elements > into a single tag. Personally I'm not a purist about such things, but I've > seen some people shudder at the current U.S. "way ref tag" practices of > listing route refs one after another in a single data field. > > Peter > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Peter Davies <peter.dav...@crc-corp.com> > wrote: > I think it useful to spin off this topic from the long and still unfinished > debate about directional roles in relations. I hope it can be agreed more > quickly than the cardinal directional roles issue! > > The question is how to handle US roadway routes that are double, triple or > even quad-banded, having multiple route designators. Some OSM mappers call > this topic "route overlaps." I might call it "information overload." On > most maps, renderers simply show ALL the shields. But is it helpful to have > roads peppered with conflicting information about the route number? Who > gains by knowing that Western Avenue, Augusta, Maine is US 202, ME 11, ME > 17 > and ME 100? Isn't this really confusing and unhelpful for most map users? > > Now, if it's confusing on a map, just think how confusing it is in a > navigation system or a traffic event info system. "Look out for a crash on > US 202 eastbound / ME 11 northbound / ME 17 northbound / ME 100 eastbound > (Western Avenue) in Augusta." We need to know which route designator is > the > most important one, and to use mainly or only that one when talking to > drivers. > > This is not something that OSM needs to make up. The principal designator > should the top shield, left shield or top-left shield on traffic signs. > State DOTs and police also face this same problem, and every multi-banded > route section in states with which I work already has an "official" > principal designator. We need a way of capturing this in OSM for use in > nav > systems and info systems, as well as (perhaps) for ridding simple maps of > route shield clutter. > > Martijn van Exel and perhaps others have suggested that we should use only > relations to define route designators on ways, and not way ref tags. > However I can't see how the relations alone can indicate this hierarchy > of > route designators on a way. > > As an example, let's look again at Augusta, ME, where Western Avenue is > quad > banded as US 202;ME 11;ME 17;ME 100. I've just listed these routes in the > logical "highest system, lowest number first" sequence. I see that the > current OSM way ref tag by the Senator Inn (just east of I-95) only says US > 202, though I know from visits and from working with MEDOT that all four > shields exist on the ground. The OSM relations currently include all four > of the routes, but do not help us to prioritize the designators. > > To check out what MEDOT and the State Police think about Western Avenue's > principal designator, I just logged into Maine's state CARS system > (Condition Acquisition and Reporting System -- which we build and maintain > for MEDOT here at Castle Rock) and it suggests that Western Avenue is "top > posted" for MEDOT users as ME 100, not US 202. Of course I then looked at > Google. No, I'm not going to copy it. But this is fair usage, I think, > for > research on this general problem. Google says Western Avenue is ME 100 or > ME > 11 on Streetview. But the Google Map shows all four shields. > > I currently believe that Western Avenue "officially" has ME 100 as its > principal designator, and not the apparently "higher classification" US 202 > route designation. However, the signs have US 202 at the top left of a > "square" of four shields. So I personally I would continue to treat this > road as principally US 202 in OSM, replacing the present way ref tags that > say "US 202" with "US 202;ME 11;ME 17;ME 100". But in doing so I'd be > adding to map clutter unless we build simple info systems that focus only > on > the first named (principal) route designator. > > I guess a more simple solution (always worth considering!) would be to use > the way ref to show ONLY the principal (first) signed designator, and to > cover the secondary route designations using the relations. This would > avoid > info info duplication between ways and relations (at least on multi-banded > ways), and would automatically clear up map clutter of confusing shields on > most OSM based maps. Those who care about all the secondary designations > could get them from the relations. We could "keep it simple and stupid" > for > drivers. The way ref would convey only the "Principal route designator." > > There are other examples of the idealized "highest system, lowest number" > rule not being used. I 35 and I 80 north and west of Des Moines IA have the > principal designator "I 80", not "I 35". I 80 determines the milemarkers > and > the exit numbers on this common section. Looking at the milemarkers (and > exits, on freeways) is one way in which OSM mappers can determine the state > DOT's principal route designator. > > **** > > Finally as an aside, I think the OSM (bad?) habit of missing off the "US" > or > "I" or "ME" classification in relation (but not the way) refs perhaps means > we don't know that Western Avenue is US 202 (as against ME 202) unless we > look at the way ref as well as the relation ref. Currently I don't think > the relation ref alone can tell us the type of shield on which the route > number is written. I believe it would be better if relation refs and way > refs were written consistently, as US 202 (etc.) and not just 202 as we > currently see in relation refs. > > Peter > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > Richard - true. It's sort of a chicken vs egg situation. As long as > there is no clear use case for one or the other, both practices will > remain in use. That's why I was so excited to see work continue on the > shield rendering which uses the refs on the relations. As I mentioned, > at Telenav we also pretty much solely rely on the relation refs for > the route numbers (and the relation member roles for the cardinal > direction, if we can come to a consensus about that.) These things may > help us converge on one way of doing things. > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> > wrote: > > On 11/30/13 4:57 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:57 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Peter, it would just be for the relations. It would stay the current > >> status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags > >> (see I-394 example below). > > > > > > I can't wait until we can finally kill this dinosaur. Refs, as they're > > presently tagged on ways, almost always apply to the route instead of the > > way. And not to mention they're just a pain in the butt to maintain > > properly where multiplexes exist, something that works cleanly in > relations. > > > > we're kind of stuck with ref on the ways until the data > > and data consumers come up to speed. there are a lot > > of route relations still to be built in the US. > > > > richard > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
