Alok sharma said : “Alternatively, i feel we can start a new thread “Latest Road Status in India”,where users can update the status of road they recently traveled…this way, we might even get some extensive travelers and they might help us make our road network more accurate…:)…What say??”
Travellers, who are OSM-mappers, can use a lot of tags like surface, smoothness width,lanes… to describe tha staus of a highway…
I think that somebody, who doesn’t map in OSM would not use this forum to post his observations.
Came back from Ladakh, 2 weeks back and have logged the complete 4000 kms with 1 sec interval GPS (most of the time 15-18 satellites in rage).
Updated the Hundar-Turtuk Border road based on the detailed GPS tracks.
will update other stretches where i feel the existing tracks are way out of sync by more than 40% or so.
thanx Heinz_V… how do we add a new relation for the NH…
for eg NH48 doesnt have a relation and a page… how can we add one, so can u do it?
the NH is mappped on OSM, maybe not fully but somethings are there, it wud be nice to have a relation, so i can keep adding as i trace the NH…
the NH48 has a relation (958721), but there are a lot of members missing. Look at the beginning near Mangalore to Frangipete.
WIll you add the missing ways till Bangalore?
I always work with JOSM, there it is very easy to create of modify relations.
I have corrected the relations: 958721 is for the NH13 (where also members are missing)
I have created a new relation for the NH48 (3185027) beginning at Mangalore with the first two ways as members.
If you have problems, I can help you to complete the relations
You are right. There are two relations for one NH. That means, the relation 958721 should be deleted and 961009 must be completed.
Some remark to NH 48 : it should be mapped with seperate ways for each direction; comparision with Bing shows, that it’s not exact enough.
Motorway=yes is not correct, because this NH isn’t without crossings.
i was also doing NH47 earlier…
its messed up at some part as the government has merged NH47 with NH17 and made NH66, there was already another NH66 not related to the previous mentioned, between Pondicherry - Krishnagiri
well, about NH48, its nothing I have added… it was already existing…
I have added the new relation to the existing roads…
some parts have gps data… well to my eyes on potlach, look exact… potlach doesnt allow much zoom tho…
I am currently doing the editing in browser… later at home will use JOSM…
kinda new to this so, didnt really understand why you meant its not a motorway, but will change later…
The NH47 goes from Salem - Ernkulam-Kanyakumri; the NH17 goes from Mumbai - Edapally (ending here in the NH47)
The NH66 is from Pondy-Krishinagiri.
In parts the NH47 is mapped as NH66, thats not OK.
Also someone has renamed the NH47 in NH544. After the proposed(?) renumbering of all NHs it may be NH544. Normally in the ref-tag the old name is used.
Yes, in the PDF (reference 4) there is a list of the renumbering of all NHs in India. But its difficult to read, because there is no table old numbers / new numbers.
Till now the mapping status is : ref-tag = old number ; ref:new-tag = new number
I propose to continue like that.
Look at the old NH47, starting at Salem : till Erode I have made yesterday a lot of corrections (including old/new ref.
but the kerala pwd link had it clearer i suppose.
thanks for guidance, i didnt understand the reference tag new and old what u mentioned, but will have a look at the corrections u did when i get the time, should make me understand better i hope.
so now what abt the old NH66 and the new NH66 clash? new relations or replace the old ones?
i feel new relations wud be better, keeping the old ones.
also could u explain what u meant by “ref-tag = old number ; ref:new-tag = new number”
If we want to introduce the new NH-numbers, we could use the name-tag.
Actually the mappers use the name-tag like this : ref=NH8; name = National Highway 8.
I think thats redundant and useless information. Only something like name= Jaipur Bypass makes sense.
We could write in the name-tag : name:“NH17/NH66“ (first old number, second new number)
This would be rendered and can be seen in the map (Mapnik).
Concerning the relations : I think its better to keep the old relations with old refs and create new relations with the new numbers. In the new relations the ref-tag cann’t be used, else the data is contradictory. So in new relations we should use only the ref:new-tag.
Like this, in a few years, when people is used to the new numbers, corrections could easily be made in the database ( automatic renaming by a script).
I think it is important, to have consense in the Indian mapping community, how to solve this problem.
So I ask all mappers to contribute to this discussion.
I have made for demonstration a relation for the new NH11 (3187168) in Rajasthan from Jaisalmer, Pokaran, Bikaner (old NH15), Dungargarh, Ratangarh to Fatehpur(old NH11).
All Nhs which have a new number now have a ref:new-tag. For all NHs with a new number there is an extra relation. There ist also a new wiki-page, where all NHs with new numbers are listed.
See : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/India:Roads
Because all map-renderer only look for the ref-tag, the new numbers are not to be seen in maps.
Once more I ask everybody to write here your opinions, what to do with the NH numbers.
But, if the NH number has changed or its stretch extended, then why not change the name completely in main ref and put the ols NH name in ref-new tag or so.
this way we will be putting the correct name of NH in rendered maps.
Updated NH94 (Rishikesh-Yamnotri Highway) based on GPS data from my latest trip.
Older route is now under water of Tehri Dam lake and has been updated accordingly.