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

Russ Nelson nelson at crynwr.com
Sat Oct 27 17:12:22 GMT 2012


My only objection to network=US:US:Business / ref=80 is "How do you
know it's Business-80 or 80-Business on the signs?"

In essence here, we have the tension between free-format tagging and
machine-parsable and understandable tagging. Syntax and semantics. We
*definitely* don't need tagging with ambiguous syntax or semantics.

As I've said before: tag however you want, but 1) document how you tag
in the wiki, 2) DO NOT tag in opposition to what the wiki says, and 3)
DO NOT change what the wiki says about tagging (unless you're prepared
to change the tags accurately all over the world.)

If someone violates these two DO NOTs, they are vandalizing OSM. If
they refuse to change their practices, they are agreeing that they
should be prevented from editing.

Michal Migurski writes:
 > (Changing subject line to the Richard I originally meant)
 > 
 > That was my understanding as well, but I got feedback that boiled down to "don't mess with the network tags (too much)". What do others think about this?
 > 
 > -mike.
 > 
 > On Oct 24, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Dale Puch wrote:
 > 
 > > That is my understanding as well based on previous discussions.
 > > 
 > > For For US Business route 80:
 > > network = US:US:Business
 > > ref = 80
 > > 
 > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Alexander Jones <happy5214 at gmail.com> wrote:
 > > Using your example, the network tag should say "US:US:Business"
 > > 
 > > Alexander
 > > 
 > > 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:
 > > >
 > > http://elrond.aperiodic.net/shields/?zoom=15&lat=38.7166&lon=-77.79472&layers=B
 > > >
 > > > "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
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Talk-us mailing list
 > > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
 > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 > > 
 > > 
 > > 
 > > -- 
 > > Dale Puch
 > > _______________________________________________
 > > Talk-us mailing list
 > > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
 > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
 > 
 > ----------------------------------------------------------------
 > michal migurski- mike at stamen.com
 >                  415.558.1610
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Talk-us mailing list
 > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
 > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



More information about the Talk-us mailing list