-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 65
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
First- and second-level routes of Iran #464
Comments
I’ve asked for help in the OSM Asia Telegram chat. |
Looking at this Wikipedia article, I'm willing to bet 1st-level are always 2-digit codes while 2nd-level are always 3-digit codes. |
That would make sense, though we don't (and won't) support switching shield appearance based on the number of digits. We expect that There are limited, explicitly documented exceptions to this, where we override the shield for a |
But I imagine changing the tagging scheme, which seems to work well for Iranian mappers given how it's structured and how it seems there won't be any overlap between 1st- and 2nd-level |
A charge of “tagging for the renderer” shouldn’t be leveled against a suggested change solely because a tagging issue has been exposed by a renderer. Essentially, it’s our understanding that This project is designed to make shield display a data-driven process, giving local mappers more autonomy to fix common problems and even some edge cases without having to learn Git and JavaScript. That requires minimizing the amount of hard-coded heuristics in the renderer. But we aren’t suggesting a purely presentational tagging scheme like
No blame is being cast. This is only about understanding the problem and working toward a resolution in good faith, hopefully at some point in cooperation with mappers familiar with the country. Similar efforts are underway in a number of countries, as you can see in this issue tracker. In most cases, the original tagging was an oversight, or a mistaken assumption by remote mappers, rather than an intentional decision by local mappers. This is the natural result of OSM Americana being only the second major consumer of the |
I would like to question the assumption that "different shields" = "different network". Granted that I'm not very familiar with the Iranian national road network, but the way they separate routes into 2 levels ("First Level" and "Second Level") but with all routes having the same naming format, "Road XX" (unlike in the U.S.: "Interstate X" vs. "U.S. Route YY"), and with the "XX" values being unique for all routes regardless of level implies that all routes are considered as part the same network. In the Philippines (for which you guys have already merged the shields, thanks!), the national highway agency also classifies our national highways into three classes: "Primary", "Secondary", "Tertiary". Primary routes are given 2-digit codes while secondary routes are given 3-digit codes. (Tertiary routes aren't numbered.) The difference with the Iranian system is that PH uses the same shield format for both numbered classes while IR uses two shield formats. I understand the philosophy behind going for a "data-driven process" that empowers mappers to be able to properly display the correct shield format by tweaking tags in the database instead of code in the renderer. But maybe we can make the renderer smarter with not much loss of generality? Can the renderer use other tags aside from My point is it might not be wise to force tagging different |
As I understood the discussion in #195, the Philippines classifies roads into the three classes, but the routes are either expressways or national routes. In some cases, the road classification had been added to the The identical naming scheme and lack of numerical overlap are not unique to Iran or the Philippines. Other examples include the Canadian provinces of Alberta (#227), Manitoba (#272), and New Brunswick (#275), and the U.S. states of Missouri (#284) and Virginia. In all these cases, the routes are called “Route 123” regardless of the network, but there are multiple shields and they are understood to represent multiple systems. On the other hand, each of the routes in Yukon (#252) has a different-colored shield, but nonetheless they collectively form a single system. In other words, a distinct shield design is not the determining factor in distinguishing a route network, but it is one of several factors, along with any naming difference or numeric overlap. |
Iran has two levels of road numbering underneath freeways (#463). First-level roads have a white-on-green rectangular shield, and second-level roads have a black-on-white rectangular shield.
These two networks are conflated by the tag
network=ir:national
. For support to be added for these shields, the tagging scheme would need to be changed to distinguish first- and second-level routes.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: