[Talk-us] Highway Tagging Consensus to Improve OSM (and address some of 41 latitude's concerns)

Peter Budny peterb at gatech.edu
Tue Oct 19 23:24:38 BST 2010


Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> writes:

> On 10/19/2010 03:58 PM, Peter Budny wrote:
>>> There does seem to be some debate about county roads. I would probably
>>> throw my vote in with something like "network=US:KS:Riley"
>>
>> The county name needs to be in there, otherwise you can't tell two
>> county roads apart which use the same number.  (Analogously, you
>> wouldn't put US:STATE... how would you know which state?)
>
> A relation with the boundary relation.  This could be done with
> US:STATE as well, but I think the use of the postal abbreviation for
> states is well-established while this is not the case for counties.

I would actually support that... but not yet.  It would be fairly easy
to convert from the current form to that (just write a bot to go through
and change network=US:<state abbr> to network=US:STATE and add it to the
super-relation), so why not put that off until the tools have improved?
People complain enough about breaking ordinary route relations, I'd hate
to see the bitching when someone breaks an entire state.

> You could also add a link to an SVG icon for the shield rendering into
> the county boundary relation, so it would only be need to be changed
> in once place.  (I know linking to such things is a little iffy
> though)

I'd support this, too... for generic shields that look like "put numbers
inside an outline of the state" we could do this, and then handle the
exceptions as such, but I'd be quite happy right now just to have
ordinary symbol= tags rendered.

>> However, there are many stretches of road that are designated "Col. John
>> Q Public Memorial Highway" or something like that.  It only applies to
>> part of the route (the whole route through a state, or maybe just a
>> bridge or an intersection).  In that case, it belongs on the ways, not
>> the route.
>
> Yup, or on another route relation.

What, so make the route relation contain sub-relations for each distinct
stretch of road, recursively, until it gets down to single ways that
can't be combined (e.g. due to different bridge/tunnel tags, speed
limits, etc)?

So you'd have something like (forgive my syntax)
<route>
  <k="name" v="Interstate 75">
  <k="network" v="US:I">
  <k="ref" v="75">
  <members>
    <way>
    <way>
    <route>
      <k="official_name" v="John Q Public Memorial Highway">
      <members>
        <way>
        <way>
        <route>
          <k="official_name" v="Joe Bloggs Interchange">
          <members>
            <way>
            <way>

...and so on.
-- 
Peter Budny  \
Georgia Tech  \
CS PhD student \



More information about the Talk-us mailing list