[Talk-us] Shields are up!

James Mast rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 6 06:55:18 UTC 2013


In a previous e-mail to the list, he said that relations for "Turnpikes" were based off the name tag for the relation, while the ones that had numbers shields were based off the "network + ref" tags in the relations avoiding the name tag entirely.

-James

From: lordsutch at gmail.com
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:30:24 -0500
To: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Shields are up!

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:44 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:





I'm curious, but has a solution been found for the problem with the PA Turnpike because of having to split up the ways into separate ones for each direction because of the relation getting close to the "1000 way" limit we've imposed?



I still think that using the "super" relation I created to tie the route together could be used instead for applying the shields over the separate ways for each direction.



I'm not sure why/how directional relations would be a problem; I have the signed part of I-22 labeled with separate east/west relations yet there aren't 2x the number of I-22 shields as there are US 78 shields (which is a single relation).



http://tile.openstreetmap.us/osmus_shields/preview.html#13/33.6875/-87.0588

(For routing applications we probably want directional relations anyway, since directional heuristics based on geography aren't always right in terms of the signed/"logical" route direction.)



Chris-- 
Chris Lawrence <lordsutch at gmail.com>

Website: http://www.cnlawrence.com/


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130806/40d1ed97/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list