<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">Part of Paul's original email:</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br>
</span></font></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
* Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">actually be physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on ways describing the overlying route instead of the way itself, makes it impossible to properly describe these attributes if ref= on a way is describing the route above the way, not the way itself.</span></blockquote>
</div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: collapse;">I think your right of ways that do not span more than one way fall into the same category as bridges and tunnels mentioned above. If there is a reference number specific to a single way then it makes perfect sense to tag it with ref=. However, when there is a highway spanning hundreds or perhaps thousands of ways (or even just ten) it does not make sense to tag every single member way with the reference number of the route when it could be put in a route relation. </span></font></div>
<div><br></div>Zeke<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mikh43@googlemail.com">mikh43@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>Re: Re: [OSM-newbies] Time to retire ref= on ways?</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:07:36 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Mike Harris <a href="mailto:mikh@delco.idps.co.uk" target="_blank"><mikh@delco.idps.co.uk></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td><a href="mailto:newbies@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">newbies@openstreetmap.org</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td>Paul Johnson <a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank"><baloo@ursamundi.org></a>,
<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
I am very unsure about this proposal as it might cause me considerable
problems - but I don't want to ignore the wisdom of others or the
possible history of the issue as apparently this has been discussed
before.<br>
<br>
I can understand the desire to separate data relating to a route into a
route relation and to leave the ref tag clean for describing the
physical properties of a route. However, it is not always clear to me
where the dividing line comes. I am also uncertain about the
desirability of creating very large numbers of routes, most of which
would be very short.<br>
<br>
My thinking here is in the context of my main interest in OSM as a
means of recording data on public rights of way in England and Wales. I
realise that this is a regional issue - but it is very important in the
region (as doubtless the Oregon / Washington issues are important in
those states of the USA). There are many thousands of public rights of
way (PROWs) in England and Wales - most of them individually only a few
kilometres long - and quite often less than a kilometre. For reference
purposes each PROW is given a reference number made up of the parish
name and a numerical (or alphanumeric) identifier. My current practice
is to use the usual highway fields to identify the type of way, its
surface, its suitability / availability for different kinds of user,
etc. I then add a tag designation= to describe its legal status and a
tag ref= to record its unique identifier.<br>
<br>
Few of these PROWs extend over more than one way - and at the most a
very small number - so converting them to routes (quite apart from the
labour involved) would generate many thousands of new routes, mostly
with a single member each. I am not sure that this is sensible or
productive.<br>
<br>
Before condemning the proposal out of hand, I am seeking advice. But
please bear in mind that current practice has evolved after a great
deal of consultation, experimentation and optimisation. I am not
against change per se - but it needs to be a productive change and I
don't want to see some happy-go-lucky bot trashing years of work - that
would take me straight to the OSM exit door <span><span> :'( </span></span><span><span> :'( </span></span>.<br>
<br>
On 19:59, Paul Johnson wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>fully agree we should keep this target in mind.
But first we have to resolve a long list of problems first.
there shouldn't be any time when the renderer or other data consumers will be left with completely broken data because step2 was done before step1
osm doesn't have any way of enforcing anything we need to be careful to kill the dinosaur too early
1) route relation tagging has to be defined, agreed and accepted widely. currently it's a mess.
2) rendering, garmin maps, any other major data consumer must be updated to use relations. currently none does to my knowledge. no wonder since 1) isn't done
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>1) appears to be done based on observations around the
Oregon/Washington area (including relations that travel across other
states). Not sure what's holding up 2), since it's clearly not 1)
at this point.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>3) define a grace period after 1,2) is done and consider to delete them after that. No need to do it because any consumer understanding relations the right way will push down the relation ref and ignore the way ref.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>It's been at least a year. How much more time do you need? ;o)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div>-- <br>
<b>Mike Harris</b></div>
<br>
<div>-- <br><font color="#888888">
<b><i>Mike Harris</i></b></font></div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
newbies mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:newbies@openstreetmap.org">newbies@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>