Re: [Tagging] Classifying roads from Trunk to Tertiary and Unclassified
Hello !
I've been thinking about this for a long time.
Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O
The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example
or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example :
residential, motorway), access, and importance (commuting and
long-distance trip). I think the highway tag should be split into
those 5 features : admin_level, abutters, access, commute_importance
and long_distance_importance (by experience, there should be 6 levels
for importance, from the cul-de-sac road to the main artery).
Importance tags could also apply to bicycle path and footways :D
Julien "djakk"
Le sam. 10 août 2019 à 10:27, Joseph Eisenberg
a écrit :
>
> We recently discussed the confusion about unclassified vs residential
> recently, but a more significant issue is that different countries and
> regions have a wide variety of practices about assigning the major
> highway classes, especially trunk and primary.
>
> In some countries, including parts of Europe and parts of the USA,
> highway=trunk is reserved for "expressways" or "motorroads" with
> certain physical characteristics. However, in England where the tag
> originated, highway=trunk is used for the main, non-motorway highways
> in the country. As can be seen by glancing at the rendering of
> England, these highway=trunk connect just about every place=town in
> England: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=6/53.021/-1.033
>
> This means that highway=primary and highway=secondary is used for most
> other paved roads with one lane in each direction. Many place=villages
> in England are connected to a highway=primary and the rest have a
> highway=secondary. And most hamlets are on a highway=tertiary which
> connects to larger villages or a town.
>
> This leaves highway=unclassified for very minor roads, often too
> narrow for 2 wide vehicles to pass each other, connecting isolated
> dwellings and farms. This is how they are like residential roads, in
> the English system.
>
> I would like to adapt this system to Indonesia, where the government
> has not yet classified most roads below the National level, but the
> "Jalan Nasional" class of major highways has already been decided to
> be mapped as highway=trunk.
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Roads
> for an attempt.
>
> The idea is that one can determine the classification of highway based
> on what size of settlements it connects:
>
> trunk - connects cities to cities ("National Roads")
> primary - connects a town to a city or another town
> secondary - connects a village to a town/city or another village
> tertiary - connects a hamlet to a village/town or another hamlet
> unclassified - connect farms / isolated dwellings to a hamlet/vilage
> or another farm.
>
> This system is internally consistent and works well for rendering, as
> well as for routing.
>
> Thoughts?
> - Joseph
> (I wish I could review this with other Indonesian mappers, but we
> don't have an active forum or mailing list)
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
Hello ! I've been thinking about road hierarchy in OSM for a long time. Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example : residential, motorway), access, and importance (commuting and long-distance trip). I think the highway tag should be split into those 5 features : admin_level, abutters, access, commute_importance and long_distance_importance (by experience, there should be 6 levels for importance, from the cul-de-sac road to the main artery). Importance tags could also apply to bicycle path and footways :D Julien "djakk" Le jeu. 8 août 2019 à 22:26, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:12 AM Peter Elderson wrote: > > > > We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just > > illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to > > regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the > > classification, but in the next town it would probably not work. > > We're stuck with the hierarchy, but it doesn't really work that well > in most places other than the UK. > > In my area, there actually is a reasonable hierarchy that reflects the > relative importance of routes: > > motorway - Interstate, US, and State highways that are dual > carriageways with fully controlled access. (Some of the State Parkways > fall in this category but are named and not numbered.) > > trunk - some few special cases where a multi-lane dual carriageway is > only partially grade-separated from local traffic, or a 'super two' > where a single-carriageway road is grade-separated from local traffic, > with acceleration and deceleration ramps like a motorway. > > primary - my state designates most US Highways and some numbered state > touring routes as primary > > secondary - other state touring routes, numbered and bannered. > > tertiary - state reference routes, or numbered and bannered county > highways. State reference routes get an ´unsigned_ref=*´ since the > only field-visible marks of the numbers is a roughly 20x20 cm sign > showing the number and chaining. These markers have three four-digit > rows rows and are next to impossible to read from a moving car. Many > are collector roads that are prominently bannered, "TO NY 7", "TO US > 20" etc. > > The lower classifications are harder. We have had many arguments about > the boundaries, in rural areas, between 'unclassified', 'residential', > 'service' and 'track'. When you get into the North Woods, New York > has some public highways that are Pretty Darned Bad - I'm pretty sure > that I've tagged a "highway=track abandoned:highway=tertiary > surface=compacted tracktype=grade4 smoothness=very_bad" and decided, > "No, I'm not driving my Forester on this before scouting ahead." On > that particular road, there were indicia that would support any of the > five classes from 'tertiary' to 'track'. > > I've also put reference numbers for the highway system onto > 'highway=footway' - for roads that have been washed out or destroyed > in rock slides, where the bannering indicates a numbered route, the > actual route is marked with 'detour' signs, but the condition is > semi-permanent because there's never funding to rebuild the road. > There's actually a blazed long-distance hiking trail that follows some > of these sections, so 'footway' is appropriate, but the sections I > have in mind are impassable to anything on wheels. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy
Hello Paul ! The "old" highway tag can give default values to the 5 new tags, so it is not necessary to re-map everything :) Yes you are absolutely right : I need my own renderer to populate the new tags. I was thinking about putting anything (roads, summits, footways, towns, trees …) with importance = 1 to the lower zoom, etc. (Actually tag importance already exists, used for railways, has main values regional or national). Julien "djakk" Le sam. 10 août 2019 à 13:37, Paul Allen a écrit : > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 11:42, Julien djakk wrote: >> >> >> Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O > > > In an ideal OSM, tagging ANYTHING should be the same all over the world. > Sadly, people > sometimes insist on fitting square pegs into round holes instead of coming up > with a new > value or even a new key. I shudder every time I see "In OUR country we use > this tag > completely differently." Sometimes this list is partly to blame for that - > the last time I > can think of was about tagging polders, with some insisting that existing > tagging be > used for a feature that isn't well-described by them. But see below... > >> The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example >> or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example : >> residential, motorway), access, and importance (commuting and >> long-distance trip). I think the highway tag should be split into >> those 5 features : admin_level, abutters, access, commute_importance >> and long_distance_importance (by experience, there should be 6 levels >> for importance, from the cul-de-sac road to the main artery). > > > Hindsight is 20-20. There's a famous saying in computer programming "Plan to > throw > the first one away, you will anyway." When you develop something new, you > learn > along the way. Often you find you've painted yourself into a corner and had > you > known at the beginning what you know now you'd have done some things > differently. > That's how it is with many older (and some newer) OSM tags. Had we known > back then > what we know now, some of our tags would look a lot different. > > With your proposed scheme there are going to be some people who think it's a > good idea and others who will see all sorts of problems with it. Eventually, > after > a lot of discussion, all might agree on something vaguely similar to your idea > (which would be a lot different to what we have now). I doubt it, but it's > possible. > > Even if we come to an agreement, the problem is implementing it. It isn't a > one-to-one > mapping, far from it. And that means EVERY road that has been mapped will > have to > be re-examined in order to figure out how to tag it. With a one-to-one > mapping a > mass edit would be possible, but with this it's going to be a lot of work. A > hell of > a lot of work. There are far too many POIs that are as-yet unmapped to > divert all > our effort into retagging every highway in the world when what we already > have is, > although not ideal, reasonably good. > > If you ever managed to get this flying pig off the ground (you won't) then > there's the > problem of decorating the wings. Even if you got full agreement from the > list, and > a commitment by every mapper to remap every highway, you also have to convince > the carto people to render it. And the editor people to support it. > > There are only two ways you could make this proposal happen. One is forking > OSM > and convincing enough people to join you that you can remap every highway in > the > world before you all die of old age. The other is to invent a time machine, > go back in > time and present good arguments to persuade people to invent better tagging. > I'm > not sure, but I think you might have more chance of success if you go for the > time > machine. > > What you have is another way of illustrating that one of the main purposes of > this list > is to try to use our collective knowledge and experience to avoid introducing > tags > with problems or we'll end up with less-than-ideal tags like our highway > tagging. > OSM evolves and, like biological evolution, that means taking what we already > have > and tinkering with it a little. Big changes aren't possible, just minor > changes that > result in a design that is far from perfect but is good enough. > > -- > Paul > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] roads with many names
Hello Rob ! If you have several name or several ref, you can use the “;” separator Julien “djakk” Le dim. 18 août 2019 à 17:17, Rob Savoye a écrit : > Where I live in rural Colorado, many of the roads have 3 names. The > county designated one like "CR 2", but often have an alternate name > everyone uses like "Corkscrew Gulch Road", and then many have a US > Forest Service designation like "FS 729.2B". I usually use the common > name as the 'name' tag, and the USFS designation as the 'alt_name' tag. > I kindof would like to include the county name as well. I do see a lot > of roads use 'name_1', but that gets flagged often by validation. So my > question is, how to I tag all three road names appropriately ? > > As a fire-fighter, all 3 names get used all depending on there the > incident report comes from, so we need to know them all. Us old > responders of course know everywhere, but I'm trying to help the new > generation in our department be effective in our huge remote district, > cause we're all retiring... > > Minor note. All of our fire apparatus have a 10" Android tablet > mounted to the dash that runs OsmAnd (of course), and we use offline > navigation heavily, which is where the road names become important. > Using Open Data has decreased our response time, and on occasion, saved > somebody's life. > > - rob - > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,
Hello ! Please note that the highway tagging is designed for cars : there should be also a highway-like tagging for trucks, for bikes, and for pedestrians. Plus : there is the commuter point of view and the long-distance point of view :-) I would vote for an importance tag, values from 1 to 6 : for some roads or path we could reach a cool level of details : example : car:importance:commute=1, bike:importance:long-distance=3 We can merge : importance=6 is for cars, bikes ... and commuting and long-distance (usually it is for a dead-end), Importance=5 could still be called highway=unclassified. Julien “djakk” Le dim. 5 janv. 2020 à 16:46, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > I know this discussion is US specific, but we've struggled with > similar issues in Brazil as well, for very similar reasons. It seems > we've made some progress in the southern region when we chose to judge > importance according to a somewhat simple method (it started as: trunk > = best routes between place=city, primary = best routes between place > = town; then we refined the population targets for each level), with > the cost of requiring some discussion for uncommon corner cases (such > as when the best route between a pair of large cities actually takes > unexpectedly undeveloped roads). Some requirements based on structure > are still in place (primaries must be paved, motorways must be > divided, but trunks don't have to be divided). We've also assumed that > routing quality can only be achieved after mapping speed limits and > surfaces and cannot depend entirely on classification. It is still an > experimental approach, but it seems like mappers and users are much > more satisfied now. For verifiability, after a consensus was reached, > we documented everything in the wiki. It's a lot of work, but maybe > something like this would work in the US as well. > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 3:39 PM Paul Allen wrote: > > > > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 17:09, yo paseopor wrote: > > > >> You lost my point of view:(WHICH) the best (or worst) conditions for a > road you can find in a country. In some countries will be seem like a > motorway, in other countries or zones will be a sand track. And the other > focus: WHO can know these conditions (local communitters, people who lived > in the country, etc.) .This is an issue OSM will have to front some day. > And some day we will have an agreement about it. > > > > > > We're actually conflating several issues: > > > > 1) Road construction (paved/unpaved). > > > > 2) Number of lanes. > > > > 3) Central barrier yes/no. > > > > 4) Entry/exit types (simple junctions/roundabouts versus motorway on/off > ramps). > > > > 5) Legislation (kinds of traffic, stopping, etc). > > > > 6) Routeing preference: > > > > a) Speed > > b) Distance > > > > In some countries, like the UK, these factors are all generally > well-correlated. To > > a degree. Good routes between important destinations tend to get good > roads. Other > > places, good routes between important destinations get bad roads, but > they're still > > the best roads around. > > > > I think we need to start splitting up these attributes into different > tags and leave it > > to editors to offer the appropriate combinations for a given country. > Then carto can > > handle different coutries differently. Preferable two renderings, one > aimed at > > construction (motorway down to dirt track) and the other aimed at "good > route, > > shame about the surface." > > > > I now have a quote from Calvin and Hobbes going through my head: "And > while > > I'm dreaming, I'd like a little pony." It's probably insoluble but if > it is soluble > > it will take us decades to agree on a solution. > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > -- > Fernando Trebien > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
