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

James Mast rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
Sat Dec 7 01:31:13 UTC 2013


Well, to add a second role to an item in a relation would require an entire overhaul of relations, the editors, and even the OSM database I would think to do it.  That's why I suggested doing the ";" or "|" because data consumers already know how to deal with the ";" at least in the ref tags on normal ways (look @ Mapquest Open and their rendering of highway shields based off the ref tags on ways).  Heck, maybe even a ":" might work (role = north:unsigned).

-James

> From: m at rtijn.org
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 23:01:09 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State highways.
> To: 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/
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20131206/ce7ae05c/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list