Getting to a "finish" on what has developed and exists regarding
"shields" (guessed/inferred to mean the active project MapQuest Open
uses) would seem to disambiguate that. It seems a tall order,
doable, but tall.
We currently contract with 12 state DOTs that include and are spread
between CA and ME, and have in the past 10 years contracted with
over 20 states that are spread from (and include) AK and FL, in
respect of 511 information systems. All of them accept the
consistent use of 2-letter ISO codes for naming their state (non-US
and Interstate) routes. The 2-letter codes are part of 2+2-character
ISO codes from ISO standard 3166-1 or 3166-2. The identical 2-letter
codes are also an ANSI standard INCITS 38:2009. Finally, the
same 2-letter codes are used by the United States Postal Service and
are well known to most Americans who still send letters and parcels.
Only the US Coastguard uses different codes, and not many people
have ever heard of them.
That's a fun history. Let's be careful (discussion is good) how or
whether OSM truly consistently uses ISO codes and how "California"
does things. Please recall that the two (California and USA) are
distinct. It might go there, in fact it could be even better than
that. Oh, Buck Act zones (like ZIP codes) are not needed for mail
delivery in the fifty states, just ask the USPS. Sending
non-domestic works, too.
Perhaps excellent, clear data in OSM (that is what we are) is exactly
what is required. There may be renderers up the chain that make
sense of it, or not. It depends. The whole chain working works.
If you label routes as "SH" or "SR" or "TH" (i.e. Truck Highway)
then you create duplicate routes in adjacent states. Occasionally
states number state routes consistently across state lines, but
mostly they do not. So "SR nn" is ambiguous on regional maps. This
is a potentially big problem for info systems and navigation
systems. If we send out an alert for "SH 20" over a national or
regional channel, we can spread disinformation very easily. So
please don't imagine that OSM is just about map rendering. We live
in an age of electronics, texts, tweets, emails, etc., and not just
colored images of maps on paper or screens. PLEASE can't we use the
official ISO and ANSI codes rather than following sloppy, ambiguous
local customs?
It's a valid question. Then, there might be exceptions for which
logic might need to be coded. Depending on how smart the robot needs
to act. Humans know what we mean by statewide refs and labelling,
why can't our maps? They can. They don't quite (yet) seem to today.
In a way everybody agrees to. For all robots. That's work, and at
least a few hills to climb! Hills are surmountable.
If we follow local habits, CA residents refer to "Route 5" rather
than I-5, "Route 50" rather than US 50, and "Route 99" rather than
CA 99. But our customer in Sacramento (who has worked for Caltrans
for many years) does not advocate dumping "I " or "US" or "CA"
prefixes, which make each route unique.
It sounds like the emergence of a sort of harmony here. Though,
recall that not everybody is a resident. Many are simply one of the
people.
I can make an analogy with people's use of "St." We don't accept
"St." in OSM even though it's used by almost everyone because it's
sloppy and ambiguous. Does St. Paul have a St. Paul St.? I don't
know, but if it did we would write it unambiguously in OSM as Saint
Paul Street. PLEASE do not use ambiguous naming of state highways
then! Find all the SH and SR s etc and make them unambiguous.
Please?
Making something unambiguous means making it specifically grammatical
first. Again, a tall order. But the tone here feels hopeful.
Simply asking "let's all not make it ambiguous" begs us to make it
unambiguous.
I have no idea why the convention of leaving out half the ref in the
relation has been adopted. Just writing "5" instead of "I 5" is in
my view pointlessly inconsistent. Most states have an "SH 5". Why
create relations that are fundamentally confusing because of
laziness? Can anyone tell me a reason why ref contains a different
value at the way and relation levels? PLEASE state writing refs
properly in relations, too. Properly in this sense means uniquely.
"I 5" not "5".
CR and CH s are troubling. Minnesota has numerous CH 1 s or CR 1 s.
So do most states. So whether we write CR 1, CH 1, or 1 it won't
be unique even in the state, let alone between states. I do not
have a unique solution to propose. Fortunately most regional traffic
events happen on state routes (e.g., CA, US, I ) and most CR events
are of local interest only. But I would request that we use a
consistent labeling for CR s, for which I would propose "CR n" so at
least we know it's not a state route.
I guess I feel strongly about this ... :)
I can see you do, so there is an obvious need to "state this."
Clearly. With a good growth path to achieving harmony. Something
like a formal grammar could be quite helpful. A way of specifying
what is valid tagging and how to grow things. A warm blanket of ISO
codes might work or seem like a good idea or a suffocating blanket,
it probably depends.
Starting a small grammar that states a (could be rough at first)
harmony among "what is" lands upright. In other words, what is
specifically ambiguous (becoming what IS CLEAR) and what is
specifically "meant" by a "national overlay" of the sort Richard
"speaks." That voice speaks with certain volume, and some harmony
sounds like a sort of tuning up the choir we might agree with a set
of tags that work. With today's renderers, with renderers of the
future. So, let's spec a bit.
One place to start is to spell out the name of the sovereign state
which claims the numerical carving into that ref number space. A tag
like state=Minnesota (in your software, in your grammar, in OSM
possibly) could begin a nice warm linguistic ooze that gels
everything like lark's tounge in aspic. That is just an idea, an
example of stirring in a hook or some sugar. There are wonderful
such meeting places in this map, including these conversations. OSM
has free-form grammar, which makes the space to do this very creative
and clay like. Model away. Think first, I know you do, as it does
help. Posit tags. Posit structure. Harmonize. It is work, yet it
can be done.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
