[Talk-us] ref tags

[Jason Remillard]

Hi,

If the way is part of relation that has a ref, and the way itself does
not have a ref, then the relation ref should propagate to the way. If
the way has a ref, then that is what should be used regardless if its
in a relation or not.

Would that break anybody?

Thanks
Jason.


On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Martijn van Exel <m at rtijn.org> wrote:
> 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/