On 7/25/13 7:42 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
If I-93 is really 1 lane in each direction, it should be downgraded to
trunk. Except that we sort of have a norm that if it is signed
Interstate, it gets a pass on motorway standards. (I think that's the
wrong thing to do.)
i agree that we really shouldn't
[catching up; sorry if this is really redundant]
Chris Lawrence writes:
> A true "super two" freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever,
> would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging
> conventions. These may not be particularly common in the U.S.
> (although th
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>
> Yeah, to me the wiki reads that to be a motorway it should be dual
> carriageway except in exceedingly rare circumstances. That's how I've been
> tagging.
>
That is not how I read it, especially since I do not see fully-controlled
access tw
That sounds about right for defining a motorway.
On Jun 30, 2013 8:37 AM, "Phil! Gold" wrote:
> * Toby Murray [2013-06-30 03:39 -0500]:
> > So then we come back to the question of what exactly is trunk if it isn't
> > used for these kinds of roads?
>
> I've thought of them as something like "rea
* Toby Murray [2013-06-30 03:39 -0500]:
> So then we come back to the question of what exactly is trunk if it isn't
> used for these kinds of roads?
I've thought of them as something like "really major but not
Interstate-grade roads". Primary roads are main roads, obviously, but
trunks have bett
Yeah, to me the wiki reads that to be a motorway it should be dual
carriageway except in exceedingly rare circumstances. That's how I've been
tagging.
So then we come back to the question of what exactly is trunk if it isn't
used for these kinds of roads?
Toby
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:58 AM, P
Yeah, trunk seems more appropriate to me, motorway seems to make me think
of a limited access roadway with a statisticaly insignificant chance of
getting hit head on.
On Jun 28, 2013 8:07 PM, "Evin Fairchild" wrote:
> So basically, these super-2 roads should be tagged as motorways instead of
> pr
So basically, these super-2 roads should be tagged as motorways instead of
primary or trunk? That would be fine with me. Even though I have changed
roads like these back to primary when someone had changed them to motorway,
I only did that because I thought motorway was not supposed to be used
ther
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> That would mean most freeways including interstates in the west, with the
> exception of limited sections in the bay area, southwestern California,
> central Portland and urban Seattle wouldn't be motorways, as restricting
> pedestrians and bi
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I get that, but looking at how the tag is documented (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Motorway), if it's not divded, it's
> not a motorway. Perhaps Richard or Phil could chime in again on whether
> it's time to update the wiki or updat
I get that, but looking at how the tag is documented (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Motorway), if it's not divded, it's not
a motorway. Perhaps Richard or Phil could chime in again on whether it's
time to update the wiki or update the tag.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Richie Kennedy
wr
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> But that goes back to "are we trying to be consistent within OSM, or are
> we trying to second guess the renderer to look like some other publisher's
> map?" Or to put it another way, "Why are we trying to tag for the renderer
> in Kansas?
Yes, and out west, where there are long lonely stretches of
interstate, there seem to be places where bicycle access is allowed.
I am thinking of I-40 east of Barslow, where another mapper (sorry,
don't remember who) told me that it was correct after I asked him about it.
Charlotte
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Richie Kennedy
wrote:
> In Kansas, Signs indicating access restrictions are posted on the on-ramps
> to interstates and some (but *not* all) non-interstate freeways. K-10, for
> instance, has posted access restrictions on the Douglas County segment, but
> not on th
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2013 9:51 PM, "Chris Lawrence" wrote:
>
> > IMO the first criterion I'd look for is: does this road carry the same
> > restrictions associated with a freeway in the state in question? For
> > example, in many states, freeways h
On Jun 25, 2013 9:51 PM, "Chris Lawrence" wrote:
> IMO the first criterion I'd look for is: does this road carry the same
> restrictions associated with a freeway in the state in question? For
> example, in many states, freeways have posted access restriction signs
> limiting use by pedestrians,
A true "super two" freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever,
would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging
conventions. These may not be particularly common in the U.S.
(although they exist), but they are common enough around the world to
be consistent.
Sorta-I-93
On 6/25/13 8:49 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
It's not the number of lanes that makes the distinction, but the character
of the road. People don't expect an undivided motorway, but describing it
as a trunk will cue most renderers to go for something motorway-like but
not quite there. A super-two wit
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM, wrote:
> I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because,
> although it is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this
> segment. I believe this is consistent with the way most commercial
> map-makers would mark this segment. For examp
I'm a little late to the party here, but I am involved in this question.
I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because, although it
is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this segment. I believe
this is consistent with the way most commercial map-makers would ma
On 6/25/13 10:59 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
Maryland Route 90 seems to be what people would call a super-two and,
although parts of it are divided, other parts have no physical separation.
For most of its length, it has no at-grade intersections. When I was
doing TIGER cleanup in that area, I decided
* Paul Johnson [2013-06-25 09:40 -0500]:
> There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or
> super-four s California has a few of) highways.
[snip]
> I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
> fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limit
On 6/25/13 10:40 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
I'm under the understanding that the consensus for a motorway would be
fully multiple (at minimum 2) carriageway with limited access, whereas a
trunk would be any motorway that doesn't meet that criteria (intersections,
single carriageway, etc). Could I g
There seems to be some disagreement on how to handle the super-two (or
super-four s California has a few of) highways. These highways are two
lanes, one each way (or four lanes, two each way) with no central division
or median, but freeway-like connecting ramps. Examples would be long
stretches o
24 matches
Mail list logo
