[Talk-us] Unsigned routes (Re: shields and overlaps)

[nathan at nwacg.net]

In Arkansas, routes are not unsigned or (except in very rare cases) cosigned. The route ends where it meets a route of higher priority and begins again as a new segment elsewhere.

Most Arkansas state highways and some US highways fall victim to this splitting at some point or another. What is an open question is how to handle this in OSM. I choose to have an intentional gap in the route's relation, at least for the few I've done so far.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 19:17:56 
To: <talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Talk-us] Unsigned routes (Re:  shields and overlaps)

On 6/4/2011 7:06 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Reminds me, we need to add some notation for unsigned routes in
> relations (the only approaches I can think of are either to tag it as
> roles on each member, with things like "unsigned;west" sometimes -
> which is icky but would work - or having separate relations for
> unsigned routes).  This is one area OSM could really be an improvement
> over Google Maps etc that direct people to follow "FL 600" and the
> like.

I've been creating separate relations with unsigned_ref=* and using 
unsigned_ref on the ways (example: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23154). This of course 
doesn't work so well when a piece in the middle is unsigned (Arkansas 
and US 63, yuck). It also fails when the state doesn't have a good 
source for where the unsigned route goes (Florida and SR 35 through Bartow).

As for Florida, I never tagged the unsigned routes in the first place. 
I'd certainly be willing to add them, but as mentioned the routing isn't 
always clear.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us