[Talk-us] Scrubbing route relations (attn: Richard Welty, etc.)

Alexander Jones happy5214 at gmail.com
Wed Oct 24 19:13:24 BST 2012

Using your example, the network tag should say "US:US:Business"


Michal Migurski wrote:

> 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:
>> http://mike.teczno.com/img/OSM-Extracted-Routes-changes-2.csv.zip
>> 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:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13611326
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612265
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612825
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13612736
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/13613023
> 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.
> -mike.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> michal migurski- mike at stamen.com
>                  415.558.1610

More information about the Talk-us mailing list