[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)

[Ross Scanlon]

On 06/09/11 11:43, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> On 6 September 2011 13:21, Ross Scanlon <info at 4x4falcon.com
> <mailto:info at 4x4falcon.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     No.  The route is still the Princes Highway as per here:
>
>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Australian_Tagging___Guidelines#Route_Numbers
>     <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Route_Numbers>
>
>
> How do I tell where this named route goes?  I've read the Australian
> tagging guidelines, but they seem to be quite at odds with the
> recommendations for using the relation elsewhere.  Is there anywhere
> other than Australia where we attach a road name to a road named
> differently road?

I don't know but that was the original reason for creating route 
relations with the highway name and a second with the highway number.

>     Then the new route should be added to the relation and the old route
>     ways removed.
>
>     As Steve pointed out the relation should one from Adelaide to Sydney
>     as that's where the Princes Highway runs although many different
>     road names make up that highway.  Just as many different road names
>     make up the route relation for highway 1.
>
>
> But what is the new route, and what is the old route?  If we can't
> answer this question, then we can't map it.

Then leave what is there until someone goes and surveys it.

> In Wollongong, you have the RTA official Princes Hwy route taking
> Bellambi Lane and the Northern Distributor, while the parallel road is
> named, the Princes Highway, Flinders St, Crown St.  Where does the
> Princes Hwy route go?

> In Victoria you have the Princes Fwy, in some instances the Princes
> Highway runs next to it.  The Princes Hwy in some sections isn't even a
> through route.  Where does the Princes Hwy route go?

> In Sutherland you have the Sutherland Bypass on Acacia Rd, (Route MR1),
> the old Princes Hwy goes into Sutherland, and then stops.  Where does
> the Princes Hwy route go?

> Do you see the problem?  If we aren't mapping what is on the ground,
> what are we mapping?  Who makes the decision, and how to we arbitrate.
> Not mapping what is verifiable on the ground is a radical departure for
> OSM, and we need to think this through again.

But your saying what I'm saying map what is on the ground.

All of the above can be included in the relation a route does not have 
to be a through route.  It may have side branches as in the Sutherland 
example.  But if the sign says Old Princes Highway then it should be 
changed to that and removed from the Princes Highway relation.  If it's 
part of another named road then use alt_name.

Look at the Warlu Way in WA, not yet in osm, it does not have a route 
number but could be included in a route relation.  It's not a through 
route but has a start and end and has many side branches.

Likewise the Savanah Way, some of which is in osm.

Because things change then the route relation needs to change.

If you find these things on the ground then you need to modify them 
rather than just writing about it here.  But don't just delete the whole 
relation because one section is wrong, correct the section(s) that are 
wrong.

Cheers
Ross