Cool,<br>I was right :) (from the IRC)<br><br>route=road <br>type=route <br>ref=17 <br>name=Highway 17<br><br><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/417826">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/417826</a><br>
<br>It Makes the magic happen with rendering.<br><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.4746&lon=-123.3819&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.4746&lon=-123.3819&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF</a> you see the 17 3x<br>
<a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.4926&lon=-123.3693&zoom=12&layers=B000FTF">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.4926&lon=-123.3693&zoom=12&layers=B000FTF</a> rendered 2 times<br><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.531&lon=-123.415&zoom=10&layers=B000FTF">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.531&lon=-123.415&zoom=10&layers=B000FTF</a> rendered the HWY 17 once<br>
<br>And for each segment<br><a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25340664">http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/25340664</a><br>
We can keep them as separate pieces of road, and it's fine.<br><br>The UUID is useless and not needed... and 'cause where making an OSM map, and CanVec will provide updates of the latest data as it becomes available :-)<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:57 AM, Richard Weait <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:richard@weait.com">richard@weait.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:46 AM, Robert Shand <<a href="mailto:bob@shand.org.uk">bob@shand.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hello Everyone,<br>
><br>
> I've completed the initial steps of the NRN import for part of NW PEI.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Bob,<br>
<br>
Yay!<br>
<br>
[ ... ]<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Take a look<br>
> at <a href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.8381&lon=-64.1547&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF" target="_blank">http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.8381&lon=-64.1547&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF</a><br>
><br>
> Here we see the renderer has places lots of the markers for the road<br>
> number/name.<br>
<br>
</div>No need to worry. The frequent tertiary ref shields is a mapnik<br>
rendering setting in the shield symbolizer. If you pop over to the<br>
osmarender layer you'll see that tertiary refs appear as numbers (not<br>
shields), that they appear less frequently, and that they don't appear<br>
until z14.<br>
<br>
[mapnik geeky aside]<br>
<br>
The rule for those shields is approximately this:<br>
<br>
ShieldSymbolizer name="ref" fontset_name="bold-fonts" size="10"<br>
fill="#fff" placement="line" file="&symbols;/ter_shield3.png"<br>
type="png" width="31" height="17" min_distance="40" spacing="750"<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Cool (i think can make a custom OSM POI KML Google Earth file using the highway shields) Nifty<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
So the shields will appear on ways as short as 40 pixels and repeat<br>
every 750 pixels on long ways. Merging ways will reduce the number of<br>
shields you see when the uncombined ways are < 750 pixels long.<br>
<br>
[end mapnik geeky aside]<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Taking a look at the data in JOSM we can see that the road 151 (like many of<br>
> the others) is comprised of many ways<br>
> <a href="http://www.shand.org.uk/osm/NRNImport/talk-ca/way1.png" target="_blank">http://www.shand.org.uk/osm/NRNImport/talk-ca/way1.png</a><br>
><br>
> <a href="http://www.shand.org.uk/osm/NRNImport/talk-ca/way2.png" target="_blank">http://www.shand.org.uk/osm/NRNImport/talk-ca/way2.png</a><br>
><br>
> However if I try to combine the ways I'm getting a conflict on the<br>
> geobase::uuid<br>
> <a href="http://www.shand.org.uk/osm/NRNImport/talk-ca/conflict.png" target="_blank">http://www.shand.org.uk/osm/NRNImport/talk-ca/conflict.png</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> So my question boils down to how do we want to handle this.<br>
><br>
> We shouldn't be mapping for the renderer, but the numerous markers on the<br>
> map do look odd. In my mind the numerous ways should be combined into one<br>
> way, however if I do that I naturally have to lose some of the geobase data<br>
> like the uuid. If we get newer higher quality geobase data matching up the<br>
> roads might more painful without the correct uuid.<br>
><br>
> What are peoples thoughts?<br>
<br>
</div>I'm not certain of The One Truth regarding this. But here are some<br>
related thoughts. Perhaps others will join the discussion as well.<br>
<br>
- combining the ways is not inherently bad.<br>
-- non-import ways tend to be longer.<br>
- combining the ways is more labour for you.<br>
- combining the ways only to fix the shield issue in mapnik _is_<br>
tagging for the renderer.<br>
-- we could submit a ticket to increase min_distance<br>
--- the current min_distance setting might work really well in denser<br>
road networks than the one we see in this example.<br>
-- we could render in a Canadian style and "fix" min_distance for ourselves.<br>
--- rendering in a Canadian Style requires a server, bandwidth and hosting.<br>
- combined ways should drop the uuids, rather than merge them (?) <br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
-- the combined uuids will not correlate to a single uuid in any other system.<br></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
-- the combined uuids may hint at what happened to the original uuids,<br>
but not at where the uuids were split.<br>
-- to recreate the original uuids, one would have to dive in to the OSM history<br>
--- if you have to dive into the history to find where the uuids were<br>
split, why not rediscover the uuids at the same time?<br></blockquote><div><br> <br>Just so to the source directly and find out. (that's why we have Attribution & source tags) and look at the original SHP/OSM file to cross-reference the validity of the data.<br>
<br>Cheers,<br>Sam<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
- combined ways may later need re-dividing if relations, bridges or<br>
other features are added.<br>
<br>
What do others think?<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-ca mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><div style="visibility: hidden; display: inline;" id="avg_ls_inline_popup"></div><style type="text/css">#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}</style><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML">
</div>