[Talk-us] I think I got this right...

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sun Jan 22 12:24:44 UTC 2017


On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 6:11 PM, <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Regarding the use of child relations for routes, and what to do about
> directional roles on beltways, I made some mapping changes to a beltway
> that happens to be local to me.
>
>
>
> I took the relation for I-435[1] and “cloned” it into 2 new relations in
> JOSM[2][3]. I then deleted all ways from the in the relation and added the
> new relations, turning the old relation into the parent. As 435 is a
> beltway, I added “(clockwise)” and “(counterclockwise)” to the new
> relations. Milepost 0 on I-435 is the junction with I-35 at the southwest
> corner and the mileposts increase going clockwise (and do not reset at the
> state line) so I used the I-435 bridge over I-35 as my starting point.
> Starting there, I organized the ways in the clockwise direction in the JOSM
> relation editor. Once I had created a “loop,” I removed all the other ways
> from the clockwise relation, then selected the members of the clockwise
> relation to remove them from the counterclockwise relation. I then sorted
> out the ways for the counterclockwise direction in the same way.
>
>
>
> I left the directional roles (i.e. “north,” “south,” “east,” and “west”)
> intact to represent how the segments on 435 are signed, and changed roles
> previously marked as “forward” back to directional roles. I also happened
> to find that I had inadvertently left a gap in the counterclockwise
> direction in the Johnson County Gateway project. I also noticed someone has
> previously attempted to note the direction in the “ref” tag. I changed
> those as well.
>
>
>
> Aside from the fact that JOSM does not support the use of directional
> roles, I think the changes should make it cleaner for future mappers.
>
>
>
> [1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155
>
> [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835
>
> [3]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836
>

It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations
exclusively.  Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't, and the gap
becomes immediately apparent.  As tagged, most tools (JOSM included) won't
"get" it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170122/8c8ea64b/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list