<div dir="ltr">Paul,<div><br></div><div>One of the things that Martijn and I agree needs to be possible is for routes to change directional posting part-way along. This commonly happens on beltways like that around Minneapolis St-Paul, that around Indie, and on AZ Loop 101 and 202 here in Metro Phoenix. </div>
<div><br></div><div>For my part, I also feel we need to accommodate strange directional posting like N in one direction and E in the other, as you appear to describe on the Tulsa - Muskogee Turnpike. This is easy on fully divided highways like the Turnpike, as each directional "way" has its own role, even if both directions are in a single relation as you've coded for your area.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I was excited to hear about N one way and E the other, as I've argued that we need to handle this on single carriageway, bi-directional ways, using (say) role=north;east. In this case north would be posted as OSM forward, and east as OSM backwards. If the Muskogee Turnpike actually were a single carriageway it would probably be better to code the ways "role=east;north" with OSM forward running from Tulsa to Muskogee and to the south beyond, because this is the increasing milepoint direction (according to Wikipedia). Martijn has shown how routes' ways can fairly quickly be reversed and made consistent in terms of OSM forward, and I've done some too (e.g., ID 21). This can simplify directional role posting on long single carriageway roads.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course the M-TWP is not a single carriageway, so OSM forward actually runs in both directions, one on each carriageway, and the posting is simply "role=east" or "role=north." But single carriageway "semi-motorways" and toll roads do exist, e.g., between Nara and Kyoto in Japan, or though the Japan Alps near Shirakawago, or around Interlaken in Switzerland, or through the Mont Blanc Tunnel between France and Italy. I've been lucky enough to drive each of these in the past three months in the course of my work, while thinking hard about OSM data structures.</div>
<div><br></div><div>With this in mind I have coded three OK relations, one modified from yours for M-TWP northern section, one for the "free TWP" section posted as OK 165 (also modified from your work?) and a new one for M-TWP southern section (where no relation seemed to exist). I've set them up with increasing milepoint "ways" first, and reducing milepoint travel second. You will find the directional roles as I think they are actually posted on the ground. JOSM confirms that the ways are now in sequence in the three relations, using its little wiggly line in the relation analyzer. There is one break only in each relation, where we switch from one carriageway to the other.</div>
<div><br></div><div>After a little legitimate research on Google's Streetview (not copying, but simply studying, as all good students should), so I concluded that the northern M-TWP section is not posted counter-intuitively, as I thought you'd indicated, but simply changes direction part way along. You may know better, and should of course improve on what I've guessed. My evidence is that the M-TWP on-ramp to Tulsa is posted "West" (not "North") on westbound E Harris Road. So I assume it switches at that point from N-S posting to E-W posting. On eastbound E Harris Road I see the :"free" TWP on-ramp posted as "South". This direction switch is what we might have guessed from the road's alignment. </div>
<div><br></div><div>But what say you? Is the west/north posting truly inconsistent on M-TWP?</div><div><br></div><div>Peter</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>PS. TWP is the abbreviation used for Turnpike on some big green signs in New Jersey. The funny thing is that most English speakers don't include a W in that word, but in New Jersey apparently they do. I believe it should be pronounced "Twurnpwike".</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Paul Johnson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org" target="_blank">baloo@ursamundi.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I'm curious how this proposal works with roads like the northern section of the Muskogee Turnpike, which officially runs "North" towards Tulsa, and "East" towards Muskogee, the road's two terminii.</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Martijn van Exel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:martijnv@telenav.com" target="_blank">martijnv@telenav.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Chris Lawrence <<a href="mailto:lordsutch@gmail.com" target="_blank">lordsutch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div>> For example: way X pointing east is marked in relation Y as "east"<br>
> (presumably we could assume that "east" = forward and the opposite cardinal<br>
> direction "west" is backward). User reverses way X. Now the relation role is<br>
> potentially backward. JOSM seems to understand at least north/south and<br>
> east/west and offers to fix it (see<br>
> <a href="http://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/corrector/ReverseWayTagCorrector.java" target="_blank">http://josm.openstreetmap.de/browser/josm/trunk/src/org/openstreetmap/josm/corrector/ReverseWayTagCorrector.java</a>);<br>
> no idea if iD or Potlatch do.<br>
><br>
> We'd also need to make the validation tools smarter to recognize lossage<br>
> (for example, realizing that the route is unbroken only if the chain of role<br>
> tags once you account for the directions of the underlying ways is<br>
> monotonic),<br>
<br>
</div>Picking up on this old thread again. The status is now that iD<br>
partially supports the cardinal directions when reversing a way (it<br>
does not understand things like north:unsigned, not sure if that is<br>
easy to fix)<br>
JOSM understands 'north' as well as 'north:unsigned' (and the other<br>
cardinal directions of course) when flipping a way and offers to<br>
correctly fix the member role.<br>
<br>
Relation sorting does not seem to take the member role into account in<br>
JOSM, so that bit is not affected (or am I overlooking something?)<br>
<br>
The relation graph column in the relation editor does not recognize<br>
cardinal directions in the same way it recognizes forward / backward<br>
(with the dotted line display).<br>
<br>
The main thing I haven't looked into yet is the validation checks. Who<br>
knows which validation checks are run on relations in JOSM and/or iD<br>
to ensure 'unbroken-ness' and perhaps other things?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<div><div>--<br>
Martijn van Exel<br>
OSM data specialist<br>
Telenav<br>
<a href="http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel" target="_blank">http://www.osm.org/user/mvexel</a><br>
<a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel" target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Mvexel</a><br>
<a href="http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel" target="_blank">http://hdyc.neis-one.org/?mvexel</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">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>
</div></div></font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
<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></blockquote></div><br></div>