<div dir="ltr">Martijn<div><br></div><div>I just wrote a short novel on why I think we should use obviously different cardinal direction roles on single carriageway roads than on dual carriageway ways, and so I'll not repeat myself here.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Peter</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Martijn van Exel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org" target="_blank">m@rtijn.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">James, all,<br>
<br>
Work on JOSM is underway, and should be finished by the end of this week.<br>
I don't think I fully understand what you're trying to convey about<br>
the local/express lanes, but I think we should ensure that both JOSM<br>
and iD support cardinal directions with any :extension.<br>
<br>
I did make significant edits to the wiki page to capture the<br>
discussion and move ambiguous parts out of the way, but the<br>
north;south bit is not mine and I actually don't think it's a great<br>
idea - can't we just have role=north being concurrent with the OSM way<br>
direction? Or is that an oversimplification?<br>
<br>
Martijn<br>
<br>
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:41 AM, James Mast <<a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Looks good to me Martin. I'm game with the "role = north:unsigned" tagging<br>
> for unsigned segments.<br>
><br>
> Now all we would need to do is get JOSM to show the cardinal directions the<br>
> same way in the relation editor like "forward/backward" so that you can<br>
> verify a route is all there and there are no gaps (unless there is one for<br>
> real like I-49 currently has in LA since they are extending it). And on<br>
> this subject it brings up an interesting problem. What to do when a highway<br>
> has C/D lanes that are part of the main highway (like the 401 in Toronto,<br>
> Ontario, Canada). I know a few Interstates have these, like I-80 & I-95 in<br>
> NJ. There should be a way to have something like "role = east:express" &<br>
> "role = east:local" in a directional relation (I fully support Interstates<br>
> to have separate relations for each direction on 2di's; but on 3di's they<br>
> should stay one relation unless it's like a 30+ mile route like I-476/I-376<br>
> here in PA) and have JOSM's relation editor show a split in the highway so<br>
> you can verify there are no gaps in those areas for the relation.<br>
><br>
> Also, I have noticed you've been doing some editing for the "Highway<br>
> Directions In The United States" wiki page [1] and mention the "role =<br>
> north;south" idea for single carriageways so that the routes could tell<br>
> people which direction the way goes. I think that might still need a little<br>
> more discussion here on [talk-us] before we attempt to implement it and<br>
> mention it on that page (maybe have a vote for that part on the talk<br>
> page??). I personally think it could work, but we would need all of the<br>
> editors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch2) to have support to be able to reverse those<br>
> roles correctly if somebody reverses the way. Can't allow those to get<br>
> messed up once added. (On a side note, iD doesn't alert you if you delete a<br>
> way that's part of a relation yet, which isn't good at all.)<br>
><br>
> -James<br>
><br>
>> From: <a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org">m@rtijn.org</a><br>
>> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:16:54 -0800<br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a><br>
>> CC: <a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
><br>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State<br>
>> highways.<br>
>><br>
>> Hmm yes, on second thought, a second key on role members may not be so<br>
>> straightforward ;) How silly of me to suggest such a thing.<br>
>><br>
>> Let's keep things pragmatic then and let me suggest we go with<br>
>> role=north:unsigned for unsigned sections. I don't particularly like<br>
>> the ; because it suggests a list of things that are of similar nature<br>
>> (like apple;pear;mango) whereas a colon to me suggests a further<br>
>> scoping which is what this is.<br>
>><br>
>> So<br>
>><br>
>> role=north / role=west / role=south / role=east<br>
>><br>
>> for relation members to indicate cardinal directions, and<br>
>><br>
>> role=north:unsigned / role=west:unsigned / role=south:unsigned /<br>
>> role=east:unsigned<br>
>><br>
>> for unsigned segments, unless the entire numbered route is unsigned,<br>
>> in which case unsigned_ref would do the job.<br>
>><br>
>> Any more insights and comments?<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks<br>
>> Martijn<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, James Mast <<a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> > Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an<br>
>> > entire<br>
>> > overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would<br>
>> > think<br>
>> > to do it. That's why I suggested doing the ";" or "|" because data<br>
>> > consumers already know how to deal with the ";" at least in the ref tags<br>
>> > on<br>
>> > normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields<br>
>> > based off the ref tags on ways). Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role<br>
>> > =<br>
>> > north:unsigned).<br>
>> ><br>
>> > -James<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> From: <a href="mailto:m@rtijn.org">m@rtijn.org</a><br>
>> >> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US &<br>
>> >> State<br>
>> >> highways.<br>
>> >> To: <a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast <<a href="mailto:rickmastfan67@hotmail.com">rickmastfan67@hotmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >> > Martijn,<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this<br>
>> >> > just<br>
>> >> > for<br>
>> >> > completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this<br>
>> >> > info<br>
>> >> > into the main tags of the relation)? We would still need a way to<br>
>> >> > keep<br>
>> >> > the<br>
>> >> > direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that<br>
>> >> > the<br>
>> >> > relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know<br>
>> >> > that<br>
>> >> > 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<br>
>> >> > US-19<br>
>> >> > Trunk<br>
>> >> > on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's<br>
>> >> > still<br>
>> >> > 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",<br>
>> >> > maybe<br>
>> >> > use<br>
>> >> > the ";" or "," instead? I could see the ";" working just as good as<br>
>> >> > 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"<br>
>> >> > instead<br>
>> >> > of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and<br>
>> >> > one<br>
>> >> > covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag. Annoying and<br>
>> >> > easily<br>
>> >> > broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for<br>
>> >> > the<br>
>> >> > exact<br>
>> >> > same route on some segments.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I agree 100%.<br>
>> >> --<br>
>> >> Martijn van Exel<br>
>> >> <a href="http://openstreetmap.us/" target="_blank">http://openstreetmap.us/</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Martijn van Exel<br>
>> <a href="http://oegeo.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://oegeo.wordpress.com/</a><br>
>> <a href="http://openstreetmap.us/" target="_blank">http://openstreetmap.us/</a><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Talk-us mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Martijn van Exel<br>
<a href="http://oegeo.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://oegeo.wordpress.com/</a><br>
<a href="http://openstreetmap.us/" target="_blank">http://openstreetmap.us/</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>