The excuse I've heard is that European countries "don't have concurrencies." Which conveniently ignores the E roads...
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: > Because, as I understand it, route relations are not used as extensively > in some regions / countries as they are here in the U.S. and we cannot > impose this reliance on relationships for numbered route relations on > everyone. Perhaps if we make it a switch / option in osm2pgsql so folks can > choose based on their local situation? > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Jason Remillard < > remillard.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why not just patch osm2pgsql? It seems like the right place for this >> is on the relation. >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I wanted to get an opinion on the right place for 'ref' tags on numbered >> > routes. >> > >> > From what I understand, osm2pgsql and the downstream rendering process >> uses >> > the ref tags on the way object to render highway 'shields'. >> > >> > The following example corroborates this. Consider this (long) way: >> > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/13649057 >> > >> > See how this segment has no 'shields' on the map because the way itself >> has >> > no ref tag: >> > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=32.5419&lon=-89.4744&zoom=13&layers=M >> > >> > Even though the way is part of the properly tagged relation >> > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/23246 >> > >> > I see two issues here: >> > >> > 1) Information already present in the relation object being duplicated >> on >> > the way to satisfy the renderer >> > 2) Incomplete coverage of ref information on ways >> > >> > I don't think we can solve 1) in the short term. There are likely many, >> many >> > numbered route networks in the world that are poorly covered by >> relations, >> > because the renderer does not encourage it, because relations were >> > introduced after a lot of numbered routes were already tagged before the >> > arrival of relations, because the wiki is ambiguous, perhaps other >> reasons. >> > >> > There are perhaps a few thousand ways in the U.S. that are part of a >> > numbered route, yet do not have ref tags on the way. My question is: how >> > should we deal with these? >> > >> > My proposal is to 'fill the gaps' by manually tagging these ways using >> the >> > existing conventions for route relation ref tagging ('US 98', 'I 20', >> 'MS >> > 467', etc.) wherever this information can be derived from an existing >> route >> > relation. We have folks here at Telenav willing to spend some cycles on >> > this, but I want to see if this is a sane approach before we do >> anything. >> > -- >> > Martijn van Exel >> > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ >> > http://openstreetmap.us/ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-us mailing list >> > talk...@openstreetmap.org >> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > >> > > > > -- > Martijn van Exel > http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ > http://openstreetmap.us/ > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
