OSM Volunteer stevea
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Mon Jan 1 02:49:04 UTC 2018
Thanks, Paul. That is exactly the kind of response (mind blowing in its comprehensive completeness, although I, for one, on this channel remain in listening mode) I
was hoping for.
I would also like to see a simplification of exactly the sort you describe. Is it truly as easy as "asserting" that we move routes exclusively into relations? All the routes I deal with are relations, why are there still "laggards" who do things differently? (I'm listening, not judging).
What about creating TWO relations for TWO routes? Like, a type=route relation with ref=OR 1W and another type=route relation which is ref=99W and network=US:OR? Are we / is somebody relying upon some older-style special-case code in archaic renderer(s) which could/should be updated?
I don't want to step on toes (of implementors of old renderers), but elegant syntax is elegant syntax. Let's streamline towards elegant syntax where we can.
> On Dec 31, 2017, at 6:37 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.
> name=Pacific Highway West
> ref=OR 1W
> Member of:
> Now for another...
> name=Robert Hugh Baldock Freeway
> ref=OR 1
> Member of:
> And finally...
> name=Portland Road
> ref=OR 1E
> Which would be a member of:
> 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:
> 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.
More information about the Talk-us