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

[Paul Johnson]

Not a fan.  It greatly complicates things for information that can either
be gleaned obviously or is a "nice to have."  Having 3+ relations for
something that isn't fully divided just complicates things, with the
exception edge case of a relation that starts or ends on a divided highway.


On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 9:30 AM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com>wrote:

> I'm just curious, but what's everybody's opinion on this?  I know it's
> acceptable for the Interstates (some are setup this way, some aren't) since
> they are all divided, but what about for US Highways and State Highways?  I
> know that we want to eventually have the cardinal directions in OSM for the
> routers so they can properly tell people which direction the of the highway
> they need to turn onto (like turn left onto Westbound US-30).
>
> So, how do we do this and also how do we let people know that aren't part
> of talk-us about any possible change so that relations don't get broken
> after they've been converted into separate directions?  I mean, we can turn
> the current state relations for a highway into a "super" relation for each
> state once we create a new relation for each direction.  Also how are we
> going to name each relation?  Something like this:
>
> US 48 (WV - eastbound)
> US 48 (WV - westbound)
> US 48 (WV - super)
>
> Plus we can't forget to add in the "direction=*" tag in the relations as
> well as the "role" area (or should we just use "forward" there or even tag
> nothing there, and leave the direction in the tag area) as we can't expect
> the routers to get the direction info from the "name" tag.
>
> So for detecting relations that get broken after they've been converted
> (we should do all the Interstates first, then US highways, and then State
> highways), we need a way to let dedicated mappers know when they've been
> broken (aka, a "gap") so they can be fixed quickly.  An idea of having a
> something automatically annalizing the relations whenever they are
> modified, kinda like the "OSM Relation Analyzer" [1], would work best IMO.
> Except with this analyzer, it produces a RSS feed that will let people
> subscribed to it know that there is a broken relation that needs to be
> repaired.  And once it's been fixed, it will send out a new post on the
> feed saying that the relation no longer has a gap so people who see the
> feed later know it's been already fixed and don't waste their time checking
> to see if it has been fixed.  And the feeds would be separate based on the
> network type.  One for all Interstates (this would include the Business
> Interstates), one for US Highways (including the bannered US highways), and
> one for each of the 50 state highway networks.  That way, you can then just
> subscribe to the RSS feeds that you'd want to pay attention to only instead
> of being flooded with updates from every highway system in one feed.
>
> If you guys want, later today, I could do a test US highway in this
> setup.  I would recommend US-48 in WV/VA as it's one of the shorter US
> Highways out there, plus it mostly a divided highway in WV as it's been
> built that way and I think it's completely un-divided in VA.
>
> Also, on a side note, do you guys think we should remove the "symbol" tags
> in the relations from all the Interstates/US highways they show up in at
> the same time?
>
> So, let's get this discussion going!
>
> -James (rickmastfan67)
>
> [1] - http://ra.osmsurround.org/analyzeRelation?relationId=455420
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20131118/d30c32a0/attachment.html>