[Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)
mike at stamen.com
Wed Oct 24 17:28:40 BST 2012
On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2012, at 8:54 PM, Michal Migurski wrote:
>> I feel like this scrubbing process has revealed so much about the intricacies of different road networks that I'm going to take a slightly different approach, and focus my work on just the ref and modifier tags. I can standardize the US:US and US:I networks along with US:CA where I live, but I should hold off on attempting to overfit other states' network tags.
> Here's the newest:
> There are 5,828 changes now. I have left the network tags alone, generally. Most changes are focused on the ref and modifier tags.
I'm looking for advice & feedback.
I applied these changes to OSM last night, in a series of five changesets:
Offlist, I've been talking to NE2 about the edits, and he pointed out this morning that they negatively affect shield rendering on Aperiodic:
"Whereas formerly relations with network=US:US and the modifier in the ref failed somewhat gracefully if a bit pigheadedly (by not displaying shields at all), they now show up incorrectly as mainline routes." - NE2
NE2 asked me to revert the changes, because he's unhappy with me moving the route variant information from the ref tags to the modifier tags, e.g. turning "ref=80 Business" into "ref=80 modifier=Business". According to the supported tagging guidelines on Aperiodic, my interpretation should be correct: "The value of the ref tag on the relation must contain just the route number, without any network information." http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/supported.html
I'm looking for guidance on this changeset, with the intent of making route relation information in the US internally consistent. I can simply revert it, but I wasn't happy with the state of relation tags before and I'll continue to look for ways to make them consistent nationally. I can apply a new changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information in the modifier tags to the ref tags, but this feels incorrect. I can apply an alternative changeset that moves or duplicates the variant information to the *network* tags (another recommendation from the Aperiodic tagging guideline), but previous conversations about this change led me to believe that messing with the network tags too much would be a Bad Idea.
For those of you with an interest in the route relations, what do you think is the correct next move here?
NE2, I've been talking to you offlist but I hope you jump in here.
michal migurski- mike at stamen.com
More information about the Talk-us