[Talk-us] Network edge cases

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

My take on this is:

1. If part of the road is toll, and part is not, accurately tagging the
toll parts as toll=yes is desirable, and we should render the toll sections
in a different color, as tagged.  The underlying schema (OpenMapTiles) does
not retrieve toll tagging from a route relation and I think the current
scheme of tagging toll status at the way level is an acceptable and
desirable approach.

2. In the case where a road is toll in one direction only, we can simply
render the toll coloring higher in the stack than the non-toll color.
Then, when the user zooms in, eventually the non-toll carriageway will
appear and you'll get that greater detail of one-way toll.

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:57 AM Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:

> if toll roads aren't going to use their own color
>>
>
> We would like to give toll road lines their own color as that is a very
> common treatment on American paper highway maps.  There has been discussion
> around how to do this on Slack recently.  Simply changing the color for
> road with toll=yes seems simple enough, but this is complicated by the fact
> that quite a few toll roads have segments where the toll can be avoided and
> mappers have been (correctly) putting toll=no on these, or omitting the
> tag.  A common variant of this is toll=yes going one direction and toll=no
> going the other.  So there isn't a current tagging practice that specifies
> "this whole road is considered a toll road, despite short untolled
> segments".  Putting toll=yes on a route relation can probably address this
> in a lot of cases, but perhaps in others it may not make sense for the
> entirety of a route to be rendered in a toll road color.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:26 AM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 4:15 AM Minh Nguyen <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vào lúc 19:41 2022-01-26, Paul Johnson đã viết:
>>> > Some difficult edge cases I foresee will be in the US:TX:* network
>>> > space, since they have a /ton/ of secondary networks.  The Ranch and
>>> > Farm to Market networks are also a fairly unreal mess, since Texas
>>> signs
>>> > the two interchangeably even though in reality, all the ranch to
>>> market
>>> > routes are in the farm to market network (except for the one lone
>>> member
>>> > of the ranch road system that passes in front of LBJ's ranch).  Not
>>> sure
>>> > how much of a practical difference this will make for Americana, but
>>> > definitely a tripping point.
>>>
>>> Fortunately, the various statewide networks in Texas have distinct
>>> network=* values, even the one-off numbered networks US:TX:Beltway,
>>> US:TX:NASA, US:TX:PA, and US:TX:RM (the one in front of LBJ's ranch).
>>>
>>
>> Minor nitpick...US:TX:RM really should have just one member with the rest
>> in US:TX:FM, Texas is just weird on how they sign that network.
>>
>>
>>> (State Highway OSR is tagged network=US:TX ref=OSR, which I think is
>>> fine because it's supposed to be just like an ordinary state highway,
>>> just with an alphabetic route number.)
>>>
>>> The hard part will be designing legible shields for Texas, especially
>>> the FM/RM shield that leaves hardly any room for a sometimes four-digit
>>> route number. Based on the maps I've seen from Texas-based publishers,
>>> the guide sign-style markers (simple rectangle with a legend above) work
>>> better than any attempt at reproducing the reassurance markers,
>>> especially the new Business FM shield.
>>>
>>
>> The freeway trailblazers might be useful in this case, since they're
>> white horizontal rectangles.
>>
>>
>>> The Texas toll roads pose another set of challenges. Should we bother
>>> reproducing the special IH/US/SH TOLL shields if all toll roads will be
>>> drawn in a different line color like green anyways? If so, how important
>>> is it to preserve the Texas flag (TxTag) or NTTA logo at such a small
>>> size? It would be straightforward to just nix the road name from Harris
>>> County's toll road shields, but should it feature an acronym of the road
>>> name instead of the double arrow, for wayfinding purposes? Needless to
>>> say, if anyone has graphic design skills, we're waiting for you.
>>>
>>
>> Honestly just using the yellow TOLL banner from the MUTCD is probably an
>> easier goal that communicates the message clearly if toll roads aren't
>> going to use their own color.
>>
>>
>>> > And US:MO:Branson (or is it US:MO:Taney:Branson?) will have colors
>>> > instead of ref if those city-level routes are mapped...these color
>>> coded
>>> > routes have examples in the MUTCD, so this might not be unique to
>>> Branson.
>>>
>>> Ah, another city route system. (I'll be sure to add the Fremont, Ohio,
>>> city route shields once I've gotten through the litany of that state's
>>> county and township shields.) The color belt routes around Pittsburgh
>>> are already supported, so I don't think Branson's color routes will be a
>>> problem once they're in relations.
>>>
>>
>> I feel like we should nail down the hierarchy a bit... it's
>> US:ST:County:City, right?  If not, that makes more sense than just
>> US:ST:Locale just to cover the edge case potential for two towns with the
>> same name in the same state (rare, but not unheard of) or a county with the
>> same name as a city within it that both have their own networks.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220127/6b548647/attachment.htm>