[talk-au] Question about relations
Adrian Plaskitt
adrianplaskitt at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 25 07:07:27 BST 2012
Greetings all. I usually confine my mapping to bush tracks and cycle paths as this is what I am most interested in and is often not available from other sources. With the recent devastation of the base map I am remapping some of my local area, and rapidly realising how little I really understand, so forgive this basic question. I also find the wiki very hard to practically understand as it assumes a level of knowledge that is beyond me.
I am interested in mapping/remapping the walking route the great north walk, which is an established relation. My specific question is, when the route passes down only part of a way, say just a few blocks of a longer street, how do you assign the relation to just a few internodes. Is it necessary to split the ways at the nodes and then just assign the relation to the segments between, or is it necessary to create a new way over the top which is just the walking route, or is there some method that is simpler that I have failed to appreciate.
I am only able to use the potlach editor.
Thanks, and regards, adrian.
> From: talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32
> To: talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:05:00 +0100
>
> Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
> talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> talk-au-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> talk-au-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant)
> 2. Re: LTUAE (Michael Hampson)
> 3. Re: Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast (Michael Hampson)
> 4. Re: LTUAE (Ian Sergeant)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:18:12 +1000
> From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
> To: jinkson at bigpond.net.au
> Cc: talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE
> Message-ID:
> <CALDa4YKrysq4M3ueWjmTY6p8wLQzNBVKjSunttMvEA-DdfpMGA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> > But for metroad 10 for
> > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were
> for
> > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be listed
> > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one
> relation
> > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know and I
> > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.
>
> For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use
> two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity
> of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and
> otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we
> can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with
> directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct.
>
> > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have
> > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have
> > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone
> could
> > enlighten me would be good thanks
> >
>
> That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.
>
> > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway
> and
> > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific
> highway
> > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?
>
> It can be part of both route relations.
>
> > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who
> > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to see one
> > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke. It
> > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put in the
> > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc
> > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd pieces
> of
> > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh
> just
> > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well.
> > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40
> > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item.
>
> Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer
> to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the
> hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree.
> Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I
> don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached"
> data in the database down the track.
>
> Ian
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/4a4432d9/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:55:24 +1000
> From: Michael Hampson <mhampson at fastmail.com.au>
> To: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
> Cc: talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE
> Message-ID: <500F27DC.2050009 at fastmail.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Ian,
>
> I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and
> check them. Must learn more about relations too.
>
> Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
> On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > > But for metroad 10 for
> > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they
> > were for
> > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be
> > listed
> > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one
> > relation
> > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know
> > and I
> > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.
> >
> > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that
> > use two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the
> > connectivity of the route to be checked quickly during the
> > reconstruction phase, and otherwise does no harm. When we have reached
> > the next stage of maturity we can decide if we want to merge them back
> > into a single route relation with directional elements. So, yes, what
> > you have done is correct.
> >
> > > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have
> > > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have
> > > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if
> > someone could
> > > enlighten me would be good thanks
> > >
> >
> > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.
> >
> > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific
> > highway and
> > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific
> > highway
> > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?
> >
> > It can be part of both route relations.
> >
> > > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who
> > > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to
> > see one
> > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of
> > smoke. It
> > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put
> > in the
> > > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc
> > > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd
> > pieces of
> > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit
> > harsh just
> > > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well.
> > > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40
> > > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item.
> >
> > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least
> > refer to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this
> > way is the hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then
> > does not agree. Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that
> > are lost to OSM. I don't know if it still possible to better use some
> > of this "unattached" data in the database down the track.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/5d8e2198/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 08:58:42 +1000
> From: Michael Hampson <mhampson at fastmail.com.au>
> To: Paul HAYDON <CADManager at live.com.au>
> Cc: Talk-AU OSM <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Establishing Priorities on the Central Coast
> Message-ID: <500F28A2.3090305 at fastmail.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>
> Paul,
>
> I'll do a little bit around Woy Woy when I visit in a few weeks. Let me
> know if there is anything specific you need looked at.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael
> On 25/07/2012 3:49 AM, Paul HAYDON wrote:
> > SO, any takers interested in getting organised on the N.S.W. Central Coast? (For arguement's sake, let's call it Woy Woy to Swansea - unless someone has a preferred recommendation).
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/ff00d903/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:04:31 +1000
> From: Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com>
> To: Michael Hampson <mhampson at fastmail.com.au>
> Cc: talk-au <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [talk-au] LTUAE
> Message-ID:
> <CALDa4Y+su6J97XWbeYnVTr0uQ1FTnYXRn6mgiqT7PB-naq37mw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hi,
>
> If someone is going through the Lane Cove tunnel / Gore Hill junctions, or
> the Eastern Distributor / Harbour Tunnel junctions. There is a bit of
> complex topology here that is pretty essentially for getting our through
> routing right again.
>
> Ian.
>
> On 25 July 2012 08:55, Michael Hampson <mhampson at fastmail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Ian,
> >
> > I did see some relations on the M4 that were broken, I'll go back and
> > check them. Must learn more about relations too.
> >
> > Glad to hear you a sticking around John. :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Michael
> > On 25/07/2012 8:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
> >
> > > But for metroad 10 for
> > > example, there were 2 x relations for metroad ten. I expected they were
> > for
> > > north and south bound routes as that is the way they appeared to be
> > listed
> > > in some other areas I checked so that is what I have done. Put one
> > relation
> > > for north and the other for south. If that's not right let me know and I
> > > will fix. Not sure how a routing relation works anyway.
> >
> > For the Sydney metroads I have added directional route relations, that use
> > two directional relations for each metroad. This allows the connectivity
> > of the route to be checked quickly during the reconstruction phase, and
> > otherwise does no harm. When we have reached the next stage of maturity we
> > can decide if we want to merge them back into a single route relation with
> > directional elements. So, yes, what you have done is correct.
> >
> > > 2. for the road naming where the ref tag for metroad 10 was MR10 I have
> > > changed those to network=MR and ref=10. Same for the other roads I have
> > > worked on. Not *certain* that is correct though either so if someone
> > could
> > > enlighten me would be good thanks
> > >
> >
> > That is correct. See the Australian tagging guidelines in the wiki.
> >
> > > 3. state highway 29 continues from boundary street along pacific highway
> > and
> > > then along delhi road, which makes that small section of the pacific
> > highway
> > > sh29 *and* mr1. what should I use to reflect that?
> >
> > It can be part of both route relations.
> >
> > > Just my own view on the redaction process. No issue with people who
> > > declined the licence agreement. However it was annoying for me to see
> > one
> > > of the very first things I used for practice vanish in a puff of smoke.
> > It
> > > was just a building outline, a coles supermarket. I named it, put in the
> > > opening hours, telephone number, full address details eg addr: city: etc
> > > etc. I turned it into a thing of beauty by entering approx 10 odd
> > pieces of
> > > information, just for practice and learning. I thought it a bit harsh
> > just
> > > because someone traced a building roof everything I added went as well.
> > > Tracing the building would have taken less than a minute. I spent 40
> > > minutes researching and entering that extra detail on that single item.
> >
> > Your change sets are still available. You should be able to at least refer
> > to the info you have added. And yes, the loss of data in this way is the
> > hardest. One person just traces from an aerial and then does not agree.
> > Others survey, add cycle facilities, names etc that are lost to OSM. I
> > don't know if it still possible to better use some of this "unattached"
> > data in the database down the track.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing listTalk-au at openstreetmap.orghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/fd3d3ea8/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 61, Issue 32
> ***************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120725/90b97507/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Talk-au
mailing list