[Talk-us] [OSM-newbies] Fwd: Re: Re: Time to retire ref= on ways?

[Zeke Farwell]

Part of Paul's original email:

* Many bridges and tunnels have signed references that would actually be
> physical attributes of a way, but with the ref= tag on ways describing the
> overlying route instead of the way itself, makes it impossible to properly
> describe these attributes if ref= on a way is describing the route above the
> way, not the way itself.


I think your right of ways that do not span more than one way fall into the
same category as bridges and tunnels mentioned above.  If there is a
reference number specific to a single way then it makes perfect sense to tag
it with ref=.  However, when there is a highway spanning hundreds or perhaps
thousands of ways (or even just ten) it does not make sense to tag every
single member way with the reference number of the route when it could be
put in a route relation.

Zeke


On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Mike Harris <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:

>
>
> -------- Original Message --------  Subject: Re: Re: [OSM-newbies] Time to
> retire ref= on ways?  Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2010 23:07:36 +0000  From: Mike
> Harris <mikh at delco.idps.co.uk> <mikh at delco.idps.co.uk>  To:
> newbies at openstreetmap.org  CC: Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org><baloo at ursamundi.org>,
> talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>
> I am very unsure about this proposal as it might cause me considerable
> problems - but I don't want to ignore the wisdom of others or the possible
> history of the issue as apparently this has been discussed before.
>
> I can understand the desire to separate data relating to a route into a
> route relation and to leave the ref tag clean for describing the physical
> properties of a route. However, it is not always clear to me where the
> dividing line comes. I am also uncertain about the desirability of creating
> very large numbers of routes, most of which would be very short.
>
> My thinking here is in the context of my main interest in OSM as a means of
> recording data on public rights of way in England and Wales. I realise that
> this is a regional issue - but it is very important in the region (as
> doubtless the Oregon / Washington issues are important in those states of
> the USA). There are many thousands of public rights of way (PROWs) in
> England and Wales - most of them individually only a few kilometres long -
> and quite often less than a kilometre. For reference purposes each PROW is
> given a reference number made up of the parish name and a numerical (or
> alphanumeric) identifier. My current practice is to use the usual highway
> fields to identify the type of way, its surface, its suitability /
> availability for different kinds of user, etc. I then add a tag designation=
> to describe its legal status and a tag ref= to record its unique identifier.
>
> Few of these PROWs extend over more than one way - and at the most a very
> small number - so converting them to routes (quite apart from the labour
> involved) would generate many thousands of new routes, mostly with a single
> member each. I am not sure that this is sensible or productive.
>
> Before condemning the proposal out of hand, I am seeking advice. But please
> bear in mind that current practice has evolved after a great deal of
> consultation, experimentation and optimisation. I am not against change per
> se - but it needs to be a productive change and I don't want to see some
> happy-go-lucky bot trashing years of work - that would take me straight to
> the OSM exit door :'( :'( .
>
> On 19:59, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>
>
>
>  fully agree we should keep this target in mind.
> But first we have to resolve a long list of problems first.
> there shouldn't be any time when the renderer or other data consumers will be left with completely broken data because step2 was done before step1
> osm doesn't have any way of enforcing anything we need to be careful to kill the dinosaur too early
>
>
> 1) route relation tagging has to be defined, agreed and accepted widely. currently it's a mess.
> 2) rendering, garmin maps, any other major data consumer must be updated to use relations. currently none does to my knowledge. no wonder since 1) isn't done
>
>
>  1) appears to be done based on observations around the
> Oregon/Washington area (including relations that travel across other
> states).  Not sure what's holding up 2), since it's clearly not 1)
> at this point.
>
>
>
>  3) define a grace period after 1,2) is done and consider to delete them after that. No need to do it because any consumer understanding relations the right way will push down the relation ref and ignore the way ref.
>
>
>  It's been at least a year.  How much more time do you need?  ;o)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Mike Harris*
>
> --
> *Mike Harris*
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20100308/9ed2e666/attachment.html>