[Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept

[Peter Davies]

Kerry

I'm not sure that I follow your drift here, Kerry.  Can you elaborate about
the Miracle Mile?

Peter  :)


On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com>wrote:

> All,
>
>
>
> If you look at the guidance in the US from FHWA and the MUTCD, all route
> numbers are to used in signage.  You never know who is using a given piece
> of pavement by following which route number.  Just because the locals might
> call it “the Miracle Mile” doesn’t mean that is the appropriate choice for
> shield priority.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Davies [mailto:peter.davies at crc-corp.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:53 PM
> *To:* Tod Fitch
> *Cc:* Kerry Irons; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric
> Fischer
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators
> (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept
>
>
>
> Tod,
>
>
>
> I found a common stretch of CA 108 and CA 120 between Oakdale and Yosemite
> Junction in Tuolumne County.  I'm not sure if that's the double-banded
> section you mention.
>
>
>
> As Eric Fischer said, there are some ways that carry two approximately
> equal routes, and my suggestion was that they would both still feature in
> the way ref tags, in this case "CA 108;CA 120" (which is in fact what OSM
> currently has for these ways).  I agree that there is no obvious precedence
> order in this case other than "highest system, lowest number" (which is
> again what OSM has at present).
>
>
>
> My suggestion was (and is) that if we need to have multiple refs, because
> two or more routes are about equal, the "way refs" be listed in shield
> posting order, starting with the top or left-most shield.  Without going
> there, we won't know if that is CA 108 or CA 120, or whether it varies.
>  Since both are about equal it probably doesn't matter, because (as you
> say) both should probably be mentioned.
>
>
>
> My interest was more in what Shawn Quinn calls "rubbish numbers", such as
> US and state route refs multi-banded on an interstate.  I think he argues
> that we need them all.  I don't think that's in doubt, either.  But do we
> need them all to be listed in every way ref, or would it be sufficient to
> have them in the relation refs, with the first listed shield(s) emphasized
> in the way refs?
>
>
>
> I think the answer is already emerging.  Way ref tags with complete lists
> of overlapping secondary route designators are here to stay.  Personally
> I'm happy about this so long as the first signed route number(s), starting
> from the top and/or left of the direction signs and route confirmation
> signs, come first in the way ref lists (as they usually do in OSM already).
>  So, I 465 should be listed before US 31, or IN 67, say, as it's given
> greater precedence in the signing.
>
>
>
> In other words, most people probably think that Interstate 465 is
> Interstate 465, and not US 31 or IN 67.  So we should list it first (as we
> almost always do).  Sound fair?
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote:
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary
> designators in the ways' ref tags, as long as the most important one is
> presented first.  We can easily ignore the less important numbers.  But
> without a way ref (i.e., using only relation refs, as has been suggested)
> we have no way of knowing what is the most common route designator for that
> specific way.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> There may be no "most common route designator". A semi-local example: If I
> am directing you east over Sonora Pass I'll tell you to go east on CA 108.
> If I direct you to Yosemite I'll tell you to go east on CA 120. But for a
> number of miles they are the same road with dual signage with no obvious
> method of tell which one is the most common designator.
>
>
>
> (You can probably tell what the road officially is by looking at the very
> cryptic and hard to read version of a mile/information posts that CalTrans
> uses but most motorists never notice them and if they do they are very
> difficult to read or decipher without stopping.)
>
>
>
> Some of your examples are in areas I am not familiar with. But in both the
> San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles there are named freeways. I notice
> that in the Bay Area the name is almost never used whereas in LA it seems
> both are used with the name being more common. In either case I'd expect
> the name key to specify the name and the ref to specify the route number.
> How you decide that a local would be more likely to use the name (LA) or
> the ref (SF) I haven't the fainted idea.
>
>
>
> Tod
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20131221/ded8db68/attachment.html>