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

[Martijn van Exel]

Hmm yes, on second thought, a second key on role members may not be so
straightforward ;) How silly of me to suggest such a thing.

Let's keep things pragmatic then and let me suggest we go with
role=north:unsigned for unsigned sections. I don't particularly like
the ; because it suggests a list of things that are of similar nature
(like apple;pear;mango) whereas a colon to me suggests a further
scoping which is what this is.

So

role=north / role=west / role=south / role=east

for relation members to indicate cardinal directions, and

role=north:unsigned / role=west:unsigned / role=south:unsigned /
role=east:unsigned

for unsigned segments, unless the entire numbered route is unsigned,
in which case unsigned_ref would do the job.

Any more insights and comments?

Thanks
Martijn


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 5:31 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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/



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