[Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations

Michal Migurski mike at stamen.com
Fri Oct 19 08:38:50 BST 2012

On Oct 18, 2012, at 10:08 PM, Toby Murray wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Michal Migurski <mike at stamen.com> wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> We're getting ready to do a major data update to the Stamen Terrain layer and I've been working on scrubbing the route relations data from OSM. I've linked to a before and after CSV, processed via Google Refine to normalize networks, refs and modifiers.
>> I'm curious to get some feedback on it:
>>        http://mike.teczno.com/img/osm-scrubbed-routes-2012-09.zip
>> The associated code:
>>        https://gist.github.com/3915267
> Reviewing a diff, I see pretty much all of the relations I have
> created are unchanged soo... looks great! :)
> More seriously, I do like the idea of having the county name in there
> for county roads. But I haven't done any county routes myself yet so
> my opinions are not particularly strong.
> Looking at the diff visually I see a lot of either moving modifiers to
> their own tag or removing the duplicated modifier from the network
> tag. I guess the question there is, should the various loops,
> bypasses, truck routes, etc be considered as part of the same network
> as the unmodified highway. For example if I do a tag query for
> network=US:I and ref=376, should it return the business route as well
> as the base US 376 route?

My understanding of the modifier tag is that the ref should be the content of the main part of the shield, and the modifier goes above e.g. these shields:

I'm not well versed enough in these to really get what the ref should contain, but it seems logical to me that it would be short and sweet like an actual sign on the side of a road.

I've posted a new version of everything at the URL's above, with corrected county network names.


michal migurski- mike at stamen.com

More information about the Talk-us mailing list