[Talk-us] Route Relation Nitpicking

[Richard Welty]

On 6/16/10 1:35 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Apollinaris Schoell
> <aschoell at gmail.com>  wrote:
>    
>> Do you mind posting your "standard" for discussion and then we should
>> discuss and agree on something easy to map and easy to ise by rendering,
>> Garmin maps, other navi systems and update the wiki.  Changing existing
>> relation is vety easy with xapi download and josm for modification
>>      
> I simply used the same ref that would be on the ways. It seemed
> logical at the time.
>    
i think we need to probably work on a more general statement about what ref
tags should be.

now that we have decent garmin maps, the intersection between tagging 
and rendering
is an issue, given that the garmin display is limited in width and also 
needs to be
something that can be quickly understood.

i'll posit first that ref should be consistent across ways and 
relations, which it isn't now.

i'll secondarily posit that we probably want to keep it short.

i'll also argue that it's reasonable to expect a renderer to follow 
simple instructions
on how to assemble a decent looking shield like thingy from two or more 
tags, that
is ref doesn't need to be complete if the rest of the shield text can be 
derived from
other reliable tags.

where i'm going is this:

ref always gets the alpha numeric reference text, but does not get the 
network, e.g.
we should migrate to

7 instead of US 7, NY 7, (7), etc.

the network tag should be present, and the rightmost segment (after the 
last :) should
provide a prefix

network=US:NY
ref=7

should yield NY 7

we should provide for supression of the network tag in some cases. for 
example,
a shield with "TSP" for Taconic State Parkway is preferable to "NY TSP"

while i appreciate that Crystal and Nathan like the () convention for 
county routes,
it produces oddness in the current Garmin display. while driving on West 
Sand Lake
Road (New York 150) in my neighborhood, the Garmin (I use Dave 
Hansen/Lambertus
maps) shows me:

"Driving on West Sand Lake Road (NY 150)"

while driving on Sheer Road (County Route 52), it shows me:

"Driving on CR 52 Sheer Road"

if the () convention were in use here in NY, i'd be seeing

"Driving on West Sand Lake Road (150)"

and

"Driving on (52) Sheer Road"

which i would argue isn't really ideal.

of course, we could ask that mkgmap be changed to accomodate this
standard, but i really think that the ref & network tags, consistently
formatted in the database, should be clear and simple.

richard