[Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination

[Andrew Lester]

I just cleaned up a handful of junctions in the western provinces where refs were in the name tag, destination was in the name on the junction in addition to the link way, etc. Running an Overpass query for all of Canada (http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DrL) now shows that there are almost 2000 of these in Ontario and Quebec, 2 in Nova Scotia, and 1 in Newfoundland. The last 3 look legitimate, but a quick scan of the ones in Ontario and Quebec shows that most are clear tagging-for-the-renderer. In a few test cases, the destinations are already on the link ways, so there's no need for the destination to be in the name on the junction nodes. 

Does anyone have a good reason for keeping these as they are? My opinion is that these should all have the names removed when it's clearly the destination, and that this destination info should be added to the link way if it isn't already. 

Andrew Lester 
Victoria, BC 


From: "Martijn van Exel" <m at rtijn.org> 
To: "talk-ca" <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> 
Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 7:56:23 AM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Exit with name on node *and* destination 

So apparently this is pretty common practice in Quebec. There are 755 junction nodes that have name tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Dr9. Other provinces don't have nearly that many. 

The user breakdown for latest edit on those nodes doesn't really surface one mapper who consistently added these tags. See https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Drf 

I'm inclined to leave it to the local Quebec community to say something more definitive about what, if anything, needs to be done with these name tags... I'm happy to set up a MapRoulette challenge to enable us to systematically look at these nodes.. 

Best, 
-- 
Martijn van Exel 
m at rtijn.org 

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018, at 08:33, Martijn van Exel wrote: 
> Is there an Overpass or other query that could detect all these 
> situations? I could make a MapRoulette challenge out of them so we can 
> look at them together and remove the name on nodes where it's not 
> appropriate / redundant. 
> 
> I'll ask on IRC as well.. I am not that much of an expert in Overpass. 
> -- 
> Martijn van Exel 
> m at rtijn.org 
> 
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 18:23, Jarek Piórkowski wrote: 
> > Yep, so in this case removing the name and keeping the ref on the 
> > junction node sounds appropriate. 
> > 
> > While we're at it, the service road 
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48154169 doesn't seem to show up on 
> > any of the current imagery in iD. Does it still exist? 
> > 
> > --Jarek 
> > 
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018 at 16:28, Pierre Béland <pierzenh at yahoo.fr> wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Je disais précédemment 
> > > > Je ne sais pour les autres provinces, mais au Québec les no. de sorties 
> > > > correspondent aux bornes kilométriques de la route (ici 15 pour km 15). 
> > > > Il est plus informatif d'afficher le no de sortie (ref=15) 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ici c'est sortie 11pour km 11, et non 15 comme j'ai dit précédemment. Sur la carte, la numérotation de la sortie était «noyée» sous le texte. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pierre 
> > > 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Talk-ca mailing list 
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 

_______________________________________________ 
Talk-ca mailing list 
Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20181106/97ceafc5/attachment.html>