<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think to do it. That's why I suggested doing the ";" or "|" because data consumers already know how to deal with the ";" at least in the ref tags on normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = north:unsigned).<br><br>-James<br><br><div>> From: m@rtijn.org<br>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700<br>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.<br>> To: rickmastfan67@hotmail.com<br>> <br>> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > Martijn,<br>> ><br>> > How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for<br>> > completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info<br>> > into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to keep the<br>> > direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the<br>> > relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the<br>> > route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a<br>> > dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk<br>> > on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in<br>> > one piece.<br>> <br>> My idea was to just use<br>> <br>> role=north/east/south/west<br>> <br>> for the regularly signposted sections and<br>> <br>> role=north/east/south/west<br>> role:signed=no<br>> <br>> for the hidden sections.<br>> <br>> It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in<br>> terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in<br>> check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance.<br>> <br>> ><br>> > If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use<br>> > the ";" or "," instead? I could see the ";" working just as good as the<br>> > "|".<br>> <br>> I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more<br>> specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and<br>> access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make<br>> the most sense.<br>> <br>> ><br>> > I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead<br>> > of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one<br>> > covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag. Annoying and easily<br>> > broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact<br>> > same route on some segments.<br>> <br>> I agree 100%.<br>> -- <br>> Martijn van Exel<br>> http://openstreetmap.us/<br></div> </div></body>
</html>