[Talk-us] US relations tagging redux (was Re: OSM American User Group Page)

Apollinaris Schoell aschoell at gmail.com
Mon Feb 2 16:26:43 GMT 2009

sure this is still work in progress and I am not an expert in the  
details of the highway system. more interested in getting the data  
into the system.
my idea is to start creating relations and to document it for others.  
changing the details of a relation or adding more tags is done in a  
second. but creating the relation and adding all segments is a lot of  
work. this is manual work and needs collaboration and documentation on  
the long interstates to avoid a total chaos.
in some areas tiger data is still entirely broken and it's probably  
better to add the relation during initial cleanup work

On 1 Feb 2009, at 22:17 , Chris Lawrence wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Apollinaris Schoell <aschoell at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
>> have started to play a bit with route relations as proposed in
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
>> relations are really great especially when using JOSM.
>> But without documentation what has been done already it may end in
>> multiple relations created fro the same Interstate in different  
>> places.
>> I propose a page like this one for Interstates and local versions for
>> state highways. having links to existing relations then can be easily
>> found by all users.
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Austria/Bundesstra%C3%9Fen
> The relations tagging is still a bit of a work-in-progress; you can
> see some places here and there with slightly different conventions,
> and no real consensus has emerged.
> Open issues:
> - How "network" should be used.  My draft includes a hierarchical,
> globally-unique scheme that fits with the existing recommendations for
> "ref" tags on ways, but for state- and county-maintained roads there
> are a few ideas out there that disagree.  My argument is that we need
> to disambiguate cases like US:CA (California) and CA (Canada)* or
> US:GA (Georgia) and GA (Gabon) without the renderer having to figure
> out "what country is the route in?" to make the right decision.  On
> the other hand, a flatter scheme may be easier for new OSM editors to
> deal with... As a global project I think we'd want to distinguish
> between say the British and Irish (and Northern Irish, which is a
> third separate network) motorway networks or the various Auto*
> networks on the continent.
> - How much commonality to expect with networks elsewhere in the world.
> In Europe using e.g. ref="A 10" or ref="S 55" may make more sense...
> so should this be tagged network="FR" or network="IT" or a style more
> similar to the hierarchical proposal (network="FR:A", network="IT:S")
> even though this duplicates information?  Where's the boundary between
> special-casing and universality?
> - Should we use "operator" to encompass some of the "network"
> information?  My gut feeling is no, because the "operator" of a
> highway (e.g. who maintains the road) in the U.S. at least has little
> to do with how it is signed.  For example, state departments of
> transportation maintain Interstates, yet there is no real reason to
> have operator=Texas and operator=Oklahoma (etc.) relations for I-35.
> - Related: if we use "operator" to mean "designator" that also creates
> issues.  Interstates and U.S. highways are designated by an
> organization called "AASHTO", but that's not a particularly useful
> thing to render.
> - What "symbol" should represent (e.g. just the generic logo for the
> route type, or the "complete" logo including any information from
> "ref").  The routes I've tagged with a symbol have been "complete" SVG
> logos from Wikimedia... but not all of these exist.**
> - Potlatch doesn't know about "modifier" so keeping bannered routes
> straight is a problem.  But I'm trying to keep the "ref" tag as clean
> of things that aren't supposed to be rendered in the marker logo as
> possible (e.g. if you draw an U.S. Highway shield, you shouldn't try
> to cram "Business" inside it).
> - Nothing renders the road relations yet, so it's all empty work at
> present.  I'd consider hacking a bit on Mapnik to make it happen, but
> that's research I need to do.
> I've done the highways around Laredo (TX) using the scheme as I would
> implement it and a part of Mexican Federal Route 2 (you'll have to go
> out NW to find that bit - near Colombia, Nuevo Leon) that I had to
> edit... start around here and work your way around:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.50602&lon=-99.50679&zoom=14
> Texas is actually one of the hairier states to deal with because there
> are about 6-9 different types of state-designated highway depending on
> whether you count weird one-off routes (Ranch Road 1, Beltway 8, NASA
> Road 1) as true "types" or just TxDOT being cute.
> Chris
> * Canada doesn't have a proper system of federally-numbered routes,
> but (a) that could change and (b) each U.S. and Mexican state and
> Canadian province shouldn't be polluting the top-level namespace
> regardless.
> ** Also, "outline" markers are probably preferable for mapping to the
> "black background" markers for many route types that are found at
> Wikimedia.
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

More information about the Talk-us mailing list