[Talk-us] Changing

[Paul Johnson]

Here's another example from Oregon...

[image: Inline image 1]

This sign indicates the next section of roadway would be:

highway=secondary
ref=OR 102
bridge=yes
ref:bridge=01991

and member of:
relation=route
route=road
ref=47
network=US:OR

and over:
waterway=stream
name=Beneke Creek

With the sign itself being able to be tagged on a node as:
highway=milestone
distance=29.32 mi


On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> 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/20171231/4b6ddb92/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 151798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20171231/4b6ddb92/attachment-0001.png>