[Talk-us] Fwd: Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.

[Martijn van Exel]

Forgot to include talk-us in my response to James.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org>
Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:01 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US &
State highways.
To: James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>


On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Martijn,
>
> How would you suggest using the "role:signed = yes/no" (or is this just for
> completely unsigned highways like I-124 in TN where we can add this info
> into the main tags of the relation)?  We would still need a way to keep the
> direction for the unsigned segment of the route in the role so that the
> relation editor in JOSM (and other analyzers) would be able to know that the
> route is still going North/East or South/West, especially on a
> dual-carriageway (like what happens with US-52 on I-94 in MN and US-19 Trunk
> on I-279/I-376 here in Pittsburgh, PA) and would let you know it's still in
> one piece.

My idea was to just use

role=north/east/south/west

for the regularly signposted sections and

role=north/east/south/west
role:signed=no

for the hidden sections.

It feels contrived but I also don't see a much better solution in
terms of striking a balance between keeping relation complexity in
check and information redundancy / ease of maintenance.

>
> If you don't like the "|" separating the "role = north|unsigned", maybe use
> the ";" or "," instead?  I could see the ";" working just as good as the
> "|".

I just want to follow whatever practice is most common for more
specific information related to a tag, and thinking of the lanes and
access tagging systems I thought the role:signed approach would make
the most sense.

>
> I just want to find a solution to keep the route "all in one piece" instead
> of having to have two separate relations for it's signed segment and one
> covering the entire route with the "unsigned_ref" tag.  Annoying and easily
> broken by new users who don't know why there are two relations for the exact
> same route on some segments.

I agree 100%.
--
Martijn van Exel
http://openstreetmap.us/


-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/