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

[Peter Davies]

Kerry

I'm happy that we have reached a degree of consensus already.

I've not had time to look at the map rendering issues that you raise.
Should we assume that the ways are correctly ref tagged with route
designators, yet the shields are not showing up on some map versions?  If
so, that would be outside my field of experience.  Map rendering is a dark
art to me!

When I write "On I-90 (Dan Ryan Expressway) between Exit ..." then "I-90"
comes from OSM way ref tags and "Dan Ryan Expressway" from way name tags.
 Roadway names names like Dan Ryan Expressway or Lakeshore Drive have no
impact on ref tagging (i.e., route shields).  Lakeshore Drive should be way
ref tagged as US 41, based on what you said a couple of emails ago, and way
name tagged Lakeshore Drive.

We could also make an alert say "On I-90/I-94 (Dan Ryan Expressway) ..." if
we chose to allow two ref tag values to be picked up by our software.  This
is a decision that every map, nav or traffic messaging system designer has
to make; a trade-off between complexity and completeness.

If a mapper wanted to show that part of "Michigan Avenue" is also "The
Magnificent Mile" it could be added as a "name_1" tag.  Currently it is
only shown as a neighborhood using a node label stuck in the middle of
Michigan Avenue.  At Castle Rock we plan to ignore "name_1" tags, to keep
it simple, but a system that wanted to convey very local or colloquial
names could pick them up as "name_1", "name_2", etc.

Roadway names in OSM are totally separate from shields in way ref tags.
 For unnumbered roads, however, we have to use them in place of the route
designator as there is no "ref" available.  Currently we handle mostly
state roads, and most of them are numbered.  A few very major roads are
only named, such as Kentucky parkways, Maine Turnpike Connector, and the
the Boulevard Peripherique (motorway) in Paris.

Michigan Avenue is an example of an OSM Primary way that isn't numbered.
 As we extend alert systems off the state system onto city streets and
urban arterials, the proportion of named, unnumbered roads we have to
handle keeps increasing.  But this can't be helped.  Even where city
streets have county road numbers (say in Hennepin County, MN), they are
often not known by the residents of that city (in this case, Minneapolis).
 The names are all we have for alerting people in these cases.

Peter



Happy holidays!

Peter






On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com>wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>
> Yes, Magnificent Mile.  It’s been a few years!
>
>
>
> I don’t have much argument with most of what you say.  I was reacting to
> what I perceived as comments from some that “what the locals call it”
> should get priority with regards shields.  It should be whatever the DOT
> has designated the road as (see the mile markers when installed).
>
>
>
> However there are many MAJOR roads with dual or more routes on them.  A
> significant mid-west US example is I-80/I-90 from Elyria, OH to Gary, IN.
> For OSM to display only one of those route numbers in its shields is not,
> in my opinion, “user friendly” for map readers.  And as I noted, it appears
> there is a problem with OSM and dual/multiple route tags in at least some
> areas: no shields show for many miles where the dual routes exist.
>
>
>
> Yes the MUTCD is a guide to what to hang on a sign post or overhead gantry
> rather than a mapper’s guide, but the use of multiple route signs on a
> single pole tells you that the DOTs want us to know all the route numbers
> of a given stretch of pavement.  The MapQuest Open layer of OSM does the
> same and for me at least, this does not represent “shield clutter.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Davies [mailto:peter.davies at crc-corp.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 22, 2013 2:53 PM
> *To:* Kerry Irons
> *Cc:* Tod Fitch; 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
>
>
>
> Kerry,
>
>
>
> Your reference is to "The Magnificent Mile", a hyped up name for Michigan
> Avenue, Chicago's main shopping street.  I happen to be sitting on a plane
> to Chicago right now and the lady sitting next to me got your meaning
> immediately. Check out http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/153654226
>
>
>
> You say that "map users want to see all the route numbers on a given
> piece of pavement, not just the ..." principal route.  Yet there are many
> different types of map user, each with different needs and preferences.  I
> had said "We need a way of capturing [*the principal route designator*]
> in OSM for use in nav systems and info systems, as well as (perhaps) for
> ridding simple maps of route shield clutter."
>
>
>
> Note my *"(perhaps)" *and *"simple maps".  *I would never suggest that
> OSM mappers want to be rid of what I risked calling "route shield clutter."
>  But my job is to design map-based info systems for use by as many people
> as possible, and this experience tells me that multiple route designators
> tend to confuse the average user. My plea is that mappers ensure that the
> principal route designation (which every numbered highway has, at least in
> the eyes of police and DOTs) comes first in the way ref tag, so that simple
> maps, nav systems and info systems can be created that "say it as briefly
> as possible".  That way, you can have your "everything" maps and I can have
> my relatively "simple" info systems for ordinary folks to use.
>
>
>
> As a professional traffic engineer I know MUTCD moderately well.  The Feds
> and AASHTO do a good job of imposing some degree of consistency on the 50
> banana republics (sorry, the US states). ;)   But MUTCD is not written as a
> mapping tool, nor as a design document for nav systems or traffic info
> systems.  It's a useful guide to what we traffic engineers are supposed to
> hang on poles and gantries. In OSM, the community decides what to map, and
> my hope is to influence mappers to meet the diverse needs of many different
> user groups.
>
>
>
> Later today I'll be picking up my rental car from O'Hare and (over the
> holiday) driving the Kennedy, the Eden, and the Dan Ryan, etc.  Like you,
> I'm a relative stranger to Chicago, and I'd prefer to know them as I-90 and
> I-94.  This is why we (if Castle Rock were the Illinois 511 contractor)
> would reference a crash on the Dan Ryan as "On I-90 (Dan Ryan Expressway)
> between Exit 53 (Canalport Avenue) and Exit 52 (Roosevelt Road) look out
> for a crash ..."  We try to satisfy both the locals and the visitors.
>  Chicago's radio stations have different goals. But if I didn't mention
> "Dan Ryan", many of the locals would say "I-90? What is that?"
>
>
>
> It happens that Chicago's freeways are not cluttered with "rubbish
> numbers" (thank you Shawn Quinn; not my words).  Great job, I-DOT!   US 41
> has stayed on Lakeshore Drive, where it belongs.
>
>
>
> Kerry, our aims are not incompatible.  I'm happy to defend the way ref
> tags too.  It had been suggested that we might only need relation ref tags.
> It is true that there is much duplication.  My point is that way ref tags
> tell us the priority order of the shields, and that we can get this no
> other way.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Kerry Irons <irons54vortex at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
>
>
> The “Miracle Mile” is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe
> it is a reference for a section of Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive (also US
> 41).  Other towns have used this reference to their business district.
> Note the reference in Billy Joel’s “It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me.”  For
> people like myself who visit Chicago, “the Dan Ryan” and “the Eisenhower”
> don’t mean much, but I-90 and I-290 appear not only on maps but on exit
> signs, wayfinding signs, and mile posts.  In the US, FWHA and the MUTCD
> have standards for route numbering signs and typically ALL of the routes on
> a given piece of pavement show up at key junctions (mile post signs will
> only have the primary route, however that was determined).
>
>
>
> My point here is that map users want to see all the route numbers on a
> given piece of pavement, not just the primary route.  While OSM is very
> good about capturing all the information in tags, if only one route number
> appears at any given zoom level, those using the standard layer will not
> see the other routes (they are visible in the MapQuest Open layer).  And in
> some cases, multiple route number tags apparently cause the OSM Standard
> layer rendering to simply not show any route number shields.  There is a
> section of I-75 near me that is also US-23.  In the OSM standard layer,
> neither of those route numbers is visible at any zoom level for a 75 mile
> stretch of interstate.  The same thing happens on US-41/M-28 west of
> Marquette, MI until you get to z=13.  This is not a “user friendly” view
> for map users.
>
>
>
>
>
> Kerry
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Davies [mailto:peter.davies at crc-corp.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 11:30 PM
> *To:* Kerry Irons
> *Cc:* Tod Fitch; 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
>
>
>
> 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/20131223/5db2a5df/attachment-0001.html>