[Talk-us] State ref tags on ways

[stevea]

Getting to a "finish" on what has developed and exists regarding 
"shields" (guessed/inferred to mean the active project MapQuest Open 
uses) would seem to disambiguate that.  It seems a tall order, 
doable, but tall.

>We currently contract with 12 state DOTs that include and are spread 
>between CA and ME, and have in the past 10 years contracted with 
>over 20 states that are spread from (and include) AK and FL, in 
>respect of 511 information systems.  All of them accept the 
>consistent use of 2-letter ISO codes for naming their state (non-US 
>and Interstate) routes. The 2-letter codes are part of 2+2-character 
>ISO codes from ISO standard 3166-1 or 3166-2. The identical 2-letter 
>codes are also an ANSI standard INCITS 38:2009.  Finally, the 
>same 2-letter codes are used by the United States Postal Service and 
>are well known to most Americans who still send letters and parcels. 
> Only the US Coastguard uses different codes, and not many people 
>have ever heard of them.

That's a fun history.  Let's be careful (discussion is good) how or 
whether OSM truly consistently uses ISO codes and how "California" 
does things.  Please recall that the two (California and USA) are 
distinct.  It might go there, in fact it could be even better than 
that.  Oh, Buck Act zones (like ZIP codes) are not needed for mail 
delivery in the fifty states, just ask the USPS.  Sending 
non-domestic works, too.

Perhaps excellent, clear data in OSM (that is what we are) is exactly 
what is required.  There may be renderers up the chain that make 
sense of it, or not.  It depends.  The whole chain working works.

>If you label routes as "SH" or "SR" or "TH" (i.e. Truck Highway) 
>then you create duplicate routes in adjacent states.  Occasionally 
>states number state routes consistently across state lines, but 
>mostly they do not. So "SR nn" is ambiguous on regional maps. This 
>is a potentially big problem for info systems and navigation 
>systems.  If we send out an alert for "SH 20" over a national or 
>regional channel, we can spread disinformation very easily.  So 
>please don't imagine that OSM is just about map rendering.  We live 
>in an age of electronics, texts, tweets, emails, etc., and not just 
>colored images of maps on paper or screens.  PLEASE can't we use the 
>official ISO and ANSI codes rather than following sloppy, ambiguous 
>local customs?  

It's a valid question.  Then, there might be exceptions for which 
logic might need to be coded.  Depending on how smart the robot needs 
to act.  Humans know what we mean by statewide refs and labelling, 
why can't our maps?  They can.  They don't quite (yet) seem to today. 
In a way everybody agrees to.  For all robots.  That's work, and at 
least a few hills to climb!  Hills are surmountable.

>If we follow local habits, CA residents refer to "Route 5" rather 
>than I-5, "Route 50" rather than US 50, and "Route 99" rather than 
>CA 99.  But our customer in Sacramento (who has worked for Caltrans 
>for many years) does not advocate dumping "I " or "US" or "CA" 
>prefixes, which make each route unique.  

It sounds like the emergence of a sort of harmony here.  Though, 
recall that not everybody is a resident.  Many are simply one of the 
people.

>I can make an analogy with people's use of "St."  We don't accept 
>"St." in OSM even though it's used by almost everyone because it's 
>sloppy and ambiguous.  Does St. Paul have a St. Paul St.?  I don't 
>know, but if it did we would write it unambiguously in OSM as Saint 
>Paul Street.  PLEASE do not use ambiguous naming of state highways 
>then!  Find all the SH and SR s etc and make them unambiguous. 
> Please?

Making something unambiguous means making it specifically grammatical 
first.  Again, a tall order.  But the tone here feels hopeful. 
Simply asking "let's all not make it ambiguous" begs us to make it 
unambiguous.

>I have no idea why the convention of leaving out half the ref in the 
>relation has been adopted. Just writing "5" instead of "I 5" is in 
>my view pointlessly inconsistent.  Most states have an "SH 5".  Why 
>create relations that are fundamentally confusing because of 
>laziness?  Can anyone tell me a reason why ref contains a different 
>value at the way and relation levels?  PLEASE state writing refs 
>properly in relations, too.  Properly in this sense means uniquely. 
>"I 5" not "5".
>
>CR and CH s are troubling.  Minnesota has numerous CH 1 s or CR 1 s. 
> So do most states.  So whether we write CR 1, CH 1, or 1 it won't 
>be unique even in the state, let alone between states.  I do not 
>have a unique solution to propose. Fortunately most regional traffic 
>events happen on state routes (e.g., CA, US, I ) and most CR events 
>are of local interest only.  But I would request that we use a 
>consistent labeling for CR s, for which I would propose "CR n" so at 
>least we know it's not a state route.
>
>I guess I feel strongly about this ...  :)

I can see you do, so there is an obvious need to "state this." 
Clearly.  With a good growth path to achieving harmony.  Something 
like a formal grammar could be quite helpful.  A way of specifying 
what is valid tagging and how to grow things.  A warm blanket of ISO 
codes might work or seem like a good idea or a suffocating blanket, 
it probably depends.

Starting a small grammar that states a (could be rough at first) 
harmony among "what is" lands upright.  In other words, what is 
specifically ambiguous (becoming what IS CLEAR) and what is 
specifically "meant" by a "national overlay" of the sort Richard 
"speaks."  That voice speaks with certain volume, and some harmony 
sounds like a sort of tuning up the choir we might agree with a set 
of tags that work.  With today's renderers, with renderers of the 
future.  So, let's spec a bit.

One place to start is to spell out the name of the sovereign state 
which claims the numerical carving into that ref number space.  A tag 
like state=Minnesota (in your software, in your grammar, in OSM 
possibly) could begin a nice warm linguistic ooze that gels 
everything like lark's tounge in aspic.  That is just an idea, an 
example of stirring in a hook or some sugar.  There are wonderful 
such meeting places in this map, including these conversations.  OSM 
has free-form grammar, which makes the space to do this very creative 
and clay like.  Model away.  Think first, I know you do, as it does 
help.  Posit tags.  Posit structure.  Harmonize.  It is work, yet it 
can be done.

SteveA
California
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20140311/46e51976/attachment.html>