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

Mon Dec 16 06:37:29 UTC 2013

Edited the page to clarify, but if you think it needs more discussion
I'm happy to do that as well!
Also I think the page could do with some clarifying diagrams at this
point...Anyone good at that?

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
> James, all,
>
> Work on JOSM is underway, and should be finished by the end of this week.
> I don't think I fully understand what you're trying to convey about
> the local/express lanes, but I think we should ensure that both JOSM
> and iD support cardinal directions with any :extension.
>
> I did make significant edits to the wiki page to capture the
> discussion and move ambiguous parts out of the way, but the
> north;south bit is not mine and I actually don't think it's a great
> idea - can't we just have role=north being concurrent with the OSM way
> direction? Or is that an oversimplification?
>
> Martijn
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 4:41 AM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Looks good to me Martin.  I'm game with the "role = north:unsigned" tagging
>> for unsigned segments.
>>
>> Now all we would need to do is get JOSM to show the cardinal directions the
>> same way in the relation editor like "forward/backward" so that you can
>> verify a route is all there and there are no gaps (unless there is one for
>> real like I-49 currently has in LA since they are extending it).  And on
>> this subject it brings up an interesting problem.  What to do when a highway
>> has C/D lanes that are part of the main highway (like the 401 in Toronto,
>> Ontario, Canada).  I know a few Interstates have these, like I-80 & I-95 in
>> NJ.  There should be a way to have something like "role = east:express" &
>> "role = east:local" in a directional relation (I fully support Interstates
>> to have separate relations for each direction on 2di's; but on 3di's they
>> should stay one relation unless it's like a 30+ mile route like I-476/I-376
>> here in PA) and have JOSM's relation editor show a split in the highway so
>> you can verify there are no gaps in those areas for the relation.
>>
>> Also, I have noticed you've been doing some editing for the "Highway
>> Directions In The United States" wiki page [1] and mention the "role =
>> north;south" idea for single carriageways so that the routes could tell
>> people which direction the way goes.  I think that might still need a little
>> more discussion here on [talk-us] before we attempt to implement it and
>> mention it on that page (maybe have a vote for that part on the talk
>> page??).  I personally think it could work, but we would need all of the
>> editors (JOSM, iD, Potlatch2) to have support to be able to reverse those
>> roles correctly if somebody reverses the way.  Can't allow those to get
>> messed up once added. (On a side note, iD doesn't alert you if you delete a
>> way that's part of a relation yet, which isn't good at all.)
>>
>> -James
>>
>>> From: m at rtijn.org
>>> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:16:54 -0800
>>> To: rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
>>> CC: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State
>>> highways.
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/