[Talk-us] ref tags

[Martijn van Exel]

Because, as I understand it, route relations are not used as extensively in
some regions / countries as they are here in the U.S. and we cannot impose
this reliance on relationships for numbered route relations on everyone.
Perhaps if we make it a switch / option in osm2pgsql so folks can choose
based on their local situation?


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jason Remillard
<remillard.jason at gmail.com>wrote:

> Why not just patch osm2pgsql? It seems like the right place for this
> is on the relation.
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I wanted to get an opinion on the right place for 'ref' tags on numbered
> > routes.
> >
> > From what I understand, osm2pgsql and the downstream rendering process
> uses
> > the ref tags on the way object to render highway 'shields'.
> >
> > The following example corroborates this. Consider this (long) way:
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13649057
> >
> > See how this segment has no 'shields' on the map because the way itself
> has
> > no ref tag:
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.5419&lon=-89.4744&zoom=13&layers=M
> >
> > Even though the way is part of the properly tagged relation
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23246
> >
> > I see two issues here:
> >
> > 1) Information already present in the relation object being duplicated on
> > the way to satisfy the renderer
> > 2) Incomplete coverage of ref information on ways
> >
> > I don't think we can solve 1) in the short term. There are likely many,
> many
> > numbered route networks in the world that are poorly covered by
> relations,
> > because the renderer does not encourage it, because relations were
> > introduced after a lot of numbered routes were already tagged before the
> > arrival of relations, because the wiki is ambiguous, perhaps other
> reasons.
> >
> > There are perhaps a few thousand ways in the U.S. that are part of a
> > numbered route, yet do not have ref tags on the way. My question is: how
> > should we deal with these?
> >
> > My proposal is to 'fill the gaps' by manually tagging these ways using
> the
> > existing conventions for route relation ref tagging ('US 98', 'I 20', 'MS
> > 467', etc.) wherever this information can be derived from an existing
> route
> > relation. We have folks here at Telenav willing to spend some cycles on
> > this, but I want to see if this is a sane approach before we do anything.
> > --
> > Martijn van Exel
> > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
> > http://openstreetmap.us/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-us mailing list
> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
>



-- 
Martijn van Exel
http://oegeo.wordpress.com/
http://openstreetmap.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130617/55fbb25f/attachment-0001.html>