[Talk-us] Changing

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 1 02:37:00 UTC 2018


Routes tagged as refs on ways instead of relations is a dinosaur that needs
to go extinct already (much like the ext filesystem after ext4 was
introduced in the Linux kernel, even by the admission of the kernel
documentation and the configuration option help text when compiling the
kernel, which literally said "let's kill this dinosaur already").  It
greatly complicates and largely prevents people from tagging way refs.

Ideally, I would like to move routes completely away from ways and into
relations.  It's extremely difficult to map Oregon and Pennsylvania's state
highway situations as a result right now.  Oregon and Pennsylvania have the
concept of both state highways and state routes.  In both cases, state
highways belong to the ways themselves, and state routes to the route (most
easily modelled as a relation).  For 3 noteworthy Oregon highways, I'll
give an example of finally moving road routes to relations so way refs can
be mapped.

Way:
name=Pacific Highway West
highway=secondary
ref=OR 1W

Member of:
route=road
ref=99W
network=US:OR

Now for another...
name=Robert Hugh Baldock Freeway
highway=motorway
ref=OR 1

Member of:
route=road
ref=5
network=US:I

And finally...

name=Portland Road
highway=secondary
ref=OR 1E

Which would be a member of:
route=road
ref=99E
network=US:OR

You also get, say, campground loops.  Which are part of the state highway
system but not signed as state routes, typically.  So you'd get a situation
like this:

highway=service
noname=yes
ref=OR 3974

and no relation at all.

Pennsylvania does something similar, but for the most part, all state
highways have the same number as state routes, until you get into 4-digit
highways, then there's rarely a state route, just a highway number.

The Oklahoma examples below would not have ref tags on the ways at all,
just unsigned_ref=* tags on the relations.

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:37 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> On Dec 31, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> > I'd go with ref_unsigned on that, just to be orthagonal with other
> unsigned refs (like Oregon's state highways as opposed to state, US and
> Interstate routes; or Oklahoma's unsigned 0, 00 and 000).
>
> Yup, there is that, too.  Anybody else want to chime in about old_ref or
> ref_unsigned or other flavors of those (in the loose semantic sense)?  We
> might nail down some neat and tidy syntax with a brief statement of the
> fully known universe of all (more? most?) similar tags (he types hopefully).
>
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Albert Pundt <roadsguy99 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It also allows for ref:legislative to be used (much like ref:penndot
> throughout Pennsylvania) in states that still use these separate
> legislative routes.
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 8:49 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea <
> steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> > BTW, I'm all for your old_ref_legislative -> old_ref:legislative
> proposal.  It seems it would harmonize tags in the East and West (of the
> USA).
> >
> > Briefly (my reasoning is):  combining tagging conventions with tagging
> conventions growth = growth in OSM.  It is surprising how resolving small
> syntax and semantics blurs like these truly helps everything!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20171231/50e5f953/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list