[Talk-ca] canvec update Bug_13:_Too_Many_Tags

[Sam Vekemans]

In response to the latest round of bugs, i wrote bug 13:Too many tags.

When writing the page, i found the solution is always in the clarity of the
argument. When the argument is so clear, there's even less arguments. :-)

Look forward to any feedback.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Canvec2osm#Bug_13:_Too_Many_Tags

Cheers,
Sam Vekemans
Across Canada Trails

Twitter: @Acrosscanada
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM, Sam Vekemans
<acrosscanadatrails at gmail.com>wrote:

> Good point.
> Each road SHOULD be a relation which is made up of street (address
> block numbered sections).
> Geobase already does this 1st part well.
> What if we start doing this:?
>
> Create a relation route, called 'theNameOfTheRoad' and have it
> attributed to each segment. And step 2 would be to remove just the
> 'name=*' tag.
> The surface type and class designation would remain with each way segment.
>
> So... Why not train the renders to ... Automagically check for a relation?
>
> Or maybe just render intersecting roads with the same name, to behave
> like a solid road?
>
> This would make house numbering and using the roads easier.
>
> On 6/17/09, Michael Barabanov <michael.barabanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> > (Sorry for repeating myself) it's not only splitting; larger
> > streets and highways consist of a way for each direction in GeoBase.
> > This is also the recommended way to map those in OSM (see for example
> > http://josm.openstreetmap.de/wiki/Introduction, Conventions), but often
> > they are not, at least in the areas I've looked into.
> > This additional complication has to be taken into account while
> > automating the process.
> >
> > Michael.
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 04:31:06PM -0400, Richard Degelder
> > (rtdegelder at gmail.com) wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 2:02 PM, SteveC <steve at asklater.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 12 Jun 2009, at 18:54, Richard Degelder wrote:
> >> >
> >> >  William Lachance wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Look at this from another angle: Should we split up all the existing
> >> >> OSM
> >> >> road data that people have put in to add in GeoBase UUID information?
> >> >> The simple answer is that at some point we are going to have to.
> >> >>
> >> >> If we want to add the attributes available from GeoBase, and to be
> able
> >> >> to
> >> >> update it from future GeoBase updates, then we are going to have to
> >> >> find a
> >> >> way to add the GeoBase UUID information and,
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Stupid question but my understanding is that TIGER claims to reuse
> UIDs
> >> > from release to release but doesn't really. So, what is the
> probability
> >> > with
> >> > GeoBase? Just saying it might be worth thinking about before doing all
> >> > the
> >> > work.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I may not be the best person to answer the question, I can easily think
> of
> >> a
> >> few others that would be better qualified, but it is my understanding
> that
> >> the GeoBase UUIDs, the NIDs, are persistent and the primary means of
> >> identifying a segment or item.  Currently we are importing the new data
> >> from
> >> GeoBase and leaving the current user input data alone but if we want to
> >> take
> >> advantage of the extra data that comes from GeoBase we are going to have
> >> to
> >> find a way to split the current ways to add the data, such as the
> GeoBase
> >> NIDs and street names, at some point.
> >>
> >> I am hoping that we can do so in a manner that will not require users to
> >> manually do the splitting but that a script can be written to do most of
> >> the
> >> work for us.  There are probably going to be points where we are going
> to
> >> have to look at the data and make corrections but they should, very
> >> hopefully, be infrequent.  Once the ways are split we can use other
> tools,
> >> possibly RoadMatcher, to transfer data from GeoBase to OSM to fill out
> the
> >> map even more.
> >>
> >> Steve Singer, the person who is doing most of the work with the import
> of
> >> the GeoBase data, pointed out recently that there were new updates for
> >> areas
> >> that he had already imported the data and so we have the oppertunity to
> >> really test the ability to update OSM from a GeoBase update.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Best
> >> >
> >> > Steve
> >> >
> >> > Richard Degelder
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-ca mailing list
> >> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
>
>
> --
> Twitter: @Acrosscanada
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/sam.vekemans
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20090617/132416b8/attachment.html>