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

James Mast rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
Sat Nov 30 18:57:07 UTC 2013


Peter, it would just be for the relations.  It would stay the current status-quo for the ways using at all times the "ref & unsigned_ref" tags (see I-394 example below).

In your example with I-394 and US-12, if you look at the way's tags [1], you can see that US 12 is still mentioned, but under the tag of "unsigned_ref".  That's how we have to so it as too many other data users wouldn't understand anything "special" in the normal "ref" tag on ways saying something is unsigned.  That's why the "east|unsigned" stuff would only work in the relations.

Here's an example of what I did for US-19 Truck here in Pittsburgh which has it's multiplex with I-279 & I-376 hidden (except for the small segment South of the Fort Pitt Tunnels because of how the ramps are). First, here's the relation for the "signed" poartion of the route [2], and here's the relation for the entire route [3].  As you can see, on the entire route relation, I have the "unsigned_ref" tag for the route number, while in the "signed" relation, it has the normal "ref" tag with the route number.  I had to do it this way so that all the data users who use the relations for adding shields didn't erroneously add the Truck US-19 shields to I-279/I-376.  Sure, you could say this is "tagging for the render", but it also is mapping the ground truth since there are no US-19 Truck shields along those two Interstates. This sign [4] on Southbound I-279 is the only mention of US-19 Truck along the Interstates till it leaves I-376 just after the Fort Pitt Tunnels. (NOTE: for those who don't know, US-19 Truck used to be mutliplexed with just I-279 till I-279 was shortened to the Point in Downtown Pittsburgh and I-376 was extended from that point over the Parkway West segment of I-279 in 2009.)  (Also another little history lesson here, but Pittsburgh's US-19 Truck is the only "officially" approved Truck route with the AASHTO and shows up in the logs.)

So, if we all agree on how to handle short segments of unsigned highways in relations, I could then re-combine the route into just one relation and tag the unsigned ways as "role=north|unsigned" and "role=south|unsigned" along the I-279/I-376 multiplexes.

HOWEVER, on routes that are completely unsigned (like hidden I-124 in TN [5]), we would just keep use the "unsigned_ref" tag in the relations as we are currently doing since it doesn't have a signed segment.  But I wouldn't be totally opposed to doing it like the hidden segment of US-19 Truck mentioned above inside of the relation.

I hope this fully explains what I'm suggesting to do Peter and everybody else. ;)

-James



[1] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/43147401
[2] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/571349
[3] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3078417
[4] - http://goo.gl/maps/4fJYC
[5] - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1861175

Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 01:01:29 -0800
From: peter.davies at crc-corp.com
To: rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com
CC: talk-us at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Separate relations for each direction of US & State	highways.

James,
I have a question about this, though it all sounds good to me in principle.  Is your proposal just about the relations?  What would we do on the refs of the ways?  For example, on I-394 in Minneapolis and western suburbs, a mapper has left off US 12 because it is at least partly unsigned. So we have way ref I 394 instead of I 394;US 12.  For my applications I'd prefer it said I 394;US 12, because we need to track the overlaps (which we and our 10 state DOT customers call double banding).  But if you also want to suppress shields from maps in such areas, could we enter the way ref as I 394;US 12|unsigned  ?

Peter
  

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:43 PM, James Mast <rickmastfan67 at hotmail.com> wrote:




We also have to come up with a way to designate hidden segments of a route so we don't have to have two separate relations for highways that have segments that are hidden.

Some of the examples I'm thinking of are like US-52 in MN when it's on I-94 and US-19 Trunk here in Pittsburgh, PA while it's on I-279/I-376.  Both states have signs for theses routes telling people to follow said Interstates for those routes and then no more reference to them till when they leave the Interstates.  I'm thinking that we could possibly tag the roles for them in the relations this way: role=north|unsigned.  This would also help for the renders that use the relations to add the shields.  They would be able to use the "|unsigned" part to know not to add the shields along that way.


As for the highways that are completely hidden, the "unsigned_ref" tag in the relation will work perfectly for them still (US-85 in NM as an example).

Anybody else agree with me that this might work better than the two relations for the highways that have segments that are hidden?


-James
 		 	   		  

_______________________________________________

Talk-us mailing list

Talk-us at openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us





_______________________________________________
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/20131130/e17643e1/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list