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

Fri Dec 6 06:06:54 UTC 2013

Another update on this: following James's earlier suggestion that we
needed editor support for the n/s/e/w roles with way direction
reversal and (in the case of JOSM) the relation editor, I got some dev
time at Telenav to get the necessary JOSM patches done. I already
submitted the iD patch myself (which should be live by now).

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
> Ways are objects in their own right, so they can have tags, but
> members only exist as a reference on a relation, so there is not
> really a model for tags on members.
>
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Kam, Kristen -(p) <kristenk at telenav.com> wrote:
>> Hi All:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have a question:  Why can’t there be member tag values? There are tag
>> values for ways, so why not members? Just a thought.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Kristen
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>>
>>
>> OSM Profile à http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/KristenK
>>
>>
>>
>> From: James Mast [mailto:rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:18 PM
>> To: Martijn van Exel
>> Cc: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
>> highways.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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 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.
>>
>> -James
>>
>>> From: m at rtijn.org
>>> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:25:11 -0700
>>> To: rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
>>> CC: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
>>> highways.
>>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>> I had not thought of the Case of the Hidden Segments. It makes sense
>>> to tag them, but would it not be more in line with general OSM tagging
>>> practice to use role:signed = yes/no?
>>>
>>> I think it's a valuable extension on the role discussion, perhaps you
>>> can add a paragraph to the wiki page
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Directions_In_The_United_States
>>> with an example? I found this photo (not ideal and I'm not sure if we
>>> could use it on the wiki, but it's something ;)
>>> http://www.ajfroggie.com/roadpics/mn/us052/nb-i94e.jpg
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 3:43 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a
>>> > route
>>> > so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have
>>> > segments that are hidden.
>>> >
>>> > Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on
>>> > I-94
>>> > and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376. Both
>>> > states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said
>>> > Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till
>>> > when
>>> > they leave the Interstates. I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the
>>> > roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned. This
>>> > would
>>> > also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.
>>> > They
>>> > would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields
>>> > along that way.
>>> >
>>> > As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag
>>> > in
>>> > the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an
>>> > example).
>>> >
>>> > Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two
>>> > relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?
>>> >
>>> > -James
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Talk-us mailing list
>>> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martijn van Exel
>>> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
>>> http://openstreetmap.us/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> --
> Martijn van Exel
> http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> http://openstreetmap.us/

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