[OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Hello, highway=trunk is very different between countries, in France it is used for motorway-like roads (dual carriageway), so the same road is sometimes highway=primary and sometimes highway=trunk (example with the N7 road : http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.6303/3.2700), whereas in England or in Japan highway=trunk is used like a highway=super-primary tag even if the road is a urban street or a classic road (example : http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.62060/-0.78353). Should it be harmonized to the England standard ? djakk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Hello Colin, I'm from Brittany, west part of France :) There is an equivalent of the "autoweg" sign in France. It is also tagged with motorroad=yes. https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panneau_d%27indication_d%27une_route_à_accès_réglementé_en_France <https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panneau_d%27indication_d%27une_route_%C3%A0_acc%C3%A8s_r%C3%A9glement%C3%A9_en_France> So I was thinking using "highway=trunk" for strategic roads, not only for motor roads, all over the world ... For example in the Netherlands : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.8977/4.2042 the N57, primary highway between a trunk and a motorway, becomes trunk in the new tagging system ... An other example, each European road which is not a motorway should be tagged as a trunk road , it is not currently the case in France : https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/42344655#map=15/46.4275/0.6306 djakk Le ven. 18 août 2017 à 22:43, Colin Smale a écrit : > In the UK it is a specific road class, with its own style of signage. So > it is easily verifiable whether a road is a Trunk Road or not. Some Trunk > Roads are motorway-like, but others are standard two-way roads. So actually > it is not so much linked to the construction of the road, but to the fact > that the route is part of the government's strategic route network. > > In most/many other countries this distinction does not exist, so the use > of highway=trunk may become subjective unless a suitable definition is > found. For example, in the Netherlands an "autoweg" is usually mapped to > highway=trunk. These roads are indicated by a standard sign which you may > recognise (I don't know where you come from I'm afraid): > > > https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoweg#/media/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_G3.svg > > > //colin > > On 2017-08-18 22:00, djakk djakk wrote: > > Hello, > > highway=trunk is very different between countries, in France it is used > for motorway-like roads (dual carriageway), so the same road is sometimes > highway=primary and sometimes highway=trunk (example with the N7 road : > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/46.6303/3.2700), whereas in England > or in Japan highway=trunk is used like a highway=super-primary tag even if > the road is a urban street or a classic road (example : > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.62060/-0.78353). > > Should it be harmonized to the England standard ? > > > > djakk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
"strategic" may not be the right word (my english is rusty :) ) The thing is, I want to avoid those dotted highway=trunk like this : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/48.5884/-1.4035 (trunk then primary in the town then trunk again), I'd prefer trunk - still trunk in the town - trunk, like in England : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.1057/-2.1245 2017-08-19 14:00 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel : > > Colin Smale writes: > > > Interesting approach, which might work for Europe, but at the moment I > > am not entirely convinced. What is strategic at a European level might > > not be so strategic locally, and vice versa. The European numbers are > > also not signposted everywhere, so there may be a challenge of > > verifiability. I believe the European definition basically defines the > > endpoints and a few waypoints, and it is left to national authorities to > > join the dots as they wish. So it may or may not achieve your goal of > > having a harmonised definition between countries. > > I agree with caution in trying to change anything. > > "Strategic" is an imprecise term. In the US, different people have > different opinions about which roads are important, depending on where > they live and where they want to drive. > > The tagging scheme is very much the UK system, and has adapations in > other countries. In the US, motorway/interstate is easy, and we more or > less have primary for US highways, secondary for state highways, and > tertiary for the next level of importance (reaching adjacent population > centers). > > In the US, "trunk" is fairly well defined. It's a road that is > substantially more than a regular highway in that it has some aspects of > a motorway. To be "motorway" (interstate class), the road needs to be > divided, multiple lanes, no stoplights, no at-grade intersections, with > controlled access. To be trunk, the road has to be part way to that > standard. So that means that almost all trunks are divided with > multiple lanes in each direction, but they typically have some > intersections (every few miles to maybe every mile), and may have some > but not a lot of non-ramp access. They often have narrower lanes than > Interstate specifications allow. > > Around me, the poster child for trunk is Route 2. It's the second most > important east-west road in Massachusetts,, and in many places has two > lanes each way, is divided, and has occasional farmstands and roads on > the edge, but fairly few. Lights (and one rotary) are at least a mile > apart, and sometimes 5ish miles apart. But, way out west, it is no > longer trunk - it's just ~Main street, undivided, one lane each way, > lights, houses. There it's highway=primary, because it's still a key > route, as important as a US highway. In some places it meets motorway > specs and is tagged as such. > > Calling a regular highway trunk, when it should be secondary or primary > would defeat the purpose of trunk, which is to identify roads that feel > intermediate between regular US highway and Interstate. We don't have > any formal designation between US highway and Interstate. > > In addition, there's history of people wanting to retag highways to > match their own view of these tags, and many others being unhappy about > this. This is hugely important in OSM, which is about a group of people > cooperating to improve the map. > > > Are you actually sure there is a problem to be solved? Do you have > > examples of inappropriate or inconsistent use of highway=trunk? > > That's a very good question. Certainly I find cases where roads are > over or under tagged, and as long as it's occasional, I just fix them to > match the norms of the larger surrounding area. This is very different > from trying to make large-scale changes in what the tags mean. > > Perhaps the OPs could rephrase the discussion in terms of what seems > wrong with actual tagging and how that impacts users of the database > (not any particular render :-). > > All that said, a problem in OSM is the blurring of road classification > and road characteristics. But that partially reflects a larger societal > blurring in terms of how people identify and use roads. It partially > reflects a choice made by renderers to emphasize classification. > Imagine a map where colors depend on whether the road is divided, how > many lanes it has, and intersection frequency, and aren't affected by > government labels! > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
In England and Japan, trunk roads continue inside village boundaries. https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.2685/0.7700 ; https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.6261/139.1128 Trunk is used as a super-primary class of roads. I think it is better to try to harmonize between countries, and to use the English model all over the world than the one with the motor road sign. The latter model can still exist thanks to motorroad=yes. djakk Le sam. 19 août 2017 à 21:29, Marc Gemis a écrit : > As you can see from > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence, > trunk roads are defined differently in many countries. If you look at > e.g. Denmark, a trunk road needs a special sign. Those signs typically > come with some rules and permissions (e.g. higher speed allowed, no > pedestrians). In many cases there will be "end-of-trunk-roads" signs > at town boundaries. This means that the trunk road effectively ends > there. > > So trunk roads are more about physical characteristics and traffic > signs and less about their importance in the road network. The same is > more or less true for motorways. > > I see no reason why a trunk road has to continue inside village > boundaries, where the maxspeed is e.g. limited to 50. > > regards > > m > > > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 5:30 PM, djakk djakk > wrote: > > "strategic" may not be the right word (my english is rusty :) ) > > > > The thing is, I want to avoid those dotted highway=trunk like this : > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/48.5884/-1.4035 (trunk then > primary in > > the town then trunk again), I'd prefer trunk - still trunk in the town - > > trunk, like in England : > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.1057/-2.1245 > > > > 2017-08-19 14:00 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel : > >> > >> > >> Colin Smale writes: > >> > >> > Interesting approach, which might work for Europe, but at the moment I > >> > am not entirely convinced. What is strategic at a European level might > >> > not be so strategic locally, and vice versa. The European numbers are > >> > also not signposted everywhere, so there may be a challenge of > >> > verifiability. I believe the European definition basically defines the > >> > endpoints and a few waypoints, and it is left to national authorities > to > >> > join the dots as they wish. So it may or may not achieve your goal of > >> > having a harmonised definition between countries. > >> > >> I agree with caution in trying to change anything. > >> > >> "Strategic" is an imprecise term. In the US, different people have > >> different opinions about which roads are important, depending on where > >> they live and where they want to drive. > >> > >> The tagging scheme is very much the UK system, and has adapations in > >> other countries. In the US, motorway/interstate is easy, and we more or > >> less have primary for US highways, secondary for state highways, and > >> tertiary for the next level of importance (reaching adjacent population > >> centers). > >> > >> In the US, "trunk" is fairly well defined. It's a road that is > >> substantially more than a regular highway in that it has some aspects of > >> a motorway. To be "motorway" (interstate class), the road needs to be > >> divided, multiple lanes, no stoplights, no at-grade intersections, with > >> controlled access. To be trunk, the road has to be part way to that > >> standard. So that means that almost all trunks are divided with > >> multiple lanes in each direction, but they typically have some > >> intersections (every few miles to maybe every mile), and may have some > >> but not a lot of non-ramp access. They often have narrower lanes than > >> Interstate specifications allow. > >> > >> Around me, the poster child for trunk is Route 2. It's the second most > >> important east-west road in Massachusetts,, and in many places has two > >> lanes each way, is divided, and has occasional farmstands and roads on > >> the edge, but fairly few. Lights (and one rotary) are at least a mile > >> apart, and sometimes 5ish miles apart. But, way out west, it is no > >> longer trunk - it's just ~Main street, undivided, one lane each way, > >> lights, houses. There it's highway=primary, because it's still a key > >> route, as important as a US highway. In some places it meets motorway > >> specs and is tagged as such. &
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
> > So basically: please don't go adjusting roads in the US away from > established rough consensus because you think it ought to be different. Of course ;-) Le dim. 20 août 2017 à 04:00, Greg Troxel a écrit : > > djakk djakk writes: > > > In England and Japan, trunk roads continue inside village boundaries. > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/52.2685/0.7700 ; > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/35.6261/139.1128 > > Trunk is used as a super-primary class of roads. > > Yes, but in the US, that's not what it means. Trunk differs from > primary mostly in physical characteristics. > > I don't really understand the UK/JP rules. > > > I think it is better to try to harmonize between countries, and to use > the > > English model all over the world than the one with the motor road sign. > The > > latter model can still exist thanks to motorroad=yes. > > We don't use the motorroad sign in the US. > > So basically: please don't go adjusting roads in the US away from > established rough consensus because you think it ought to be different. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
I'm pretty sure that the use of "trunk" in UK or in Japan is about the importance of the road, not about its characteristics : https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/vBqrj5uGYBw05cd57g9TAg (this is the trunk road linked in my previous mail ; there is pavement on the right side) Why I want to do that ? To improve openstreetmap, this is a worldwide map and the renderer can't be adapted by countries. Le dim. 20 août 2017 à 11:45, Marc Gemis a écrit : > > So basically: please don't go adjusting roads in the US away from > > established rough consensus because you think it ought to be different. > > or anywhere else I would say :-) > I'll adjust the wiki first >:> ^-^ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Well, it is technically possible, but I was thinking about performance and stylesheet-maintenance issues ;) Le dim. 20 août 2017 à 12:49, ajt1...@gmail.com a écrit : > On 20/08/2017 11:36, djakk djakk wrote: > > > > Why I want to do that ? To improve openstreetmap, this is a worldwide > > map and the renderer can't be adapted by countries. > > > > Sure it can - it's perfectly possible for a render to use a > location-sensitive rendering (I've just done it myself). > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Actualy, "highway=*" shuffles importance and characteristic of roads. May we add an "importance" key to roads ? djakk Le dim. 20 août 2017 à 13:14, djakk djakk a écrit : > Well, it is technically possible, but I was thinking about performance and > stylesheet-maintenance issues ;) > > > Le dim. 20 août 2017 à 12:49, ajt1...@gmail.com a > écrit : > >> On 20/08/2017 11:36, djakk djakk wrote: >> > >> > Why I want to do that ? To improve openstreetmap, this is a worldwide >> > map and the renderer can't be adapted by countries. >> > >> >> Sure it can - it's perfectly possible for a render to use a >> location-sensitive rendering (I've just done it myself). >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Andy >> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Lester, why the little "main road" was not tagged as a tertiary road ? I'm afraid that you can't use speed_limit : on small roads, the official speed_limit is not signed but follows the default one (90km/h in France even on a lanes=1.5 road !). Le mar. 22 août 2017 à 11:16, Lester Caine a écrit : > On 21/08/17 21:09, djakk djakk wrote: > > Actualy, "highway=*" shuffles importance and characteristic of roads. > > May we add an "importance" key to roads ? > > Having spent the last week using OSMAND to navigate around the > Welsh/Cheshire border area (UK ;) ), the 'importance' of roads is > something of a problem even where the 'classification' of roads exists. > Same problem in my own home area. OSMAND treats lower and unclassified > roads as much lower importance when in many cases they ARE the main > local route and this results in poor routing decisions! Importance can > depend on why you are using the road? Things like 'speed_limit' need to > be handled before adding another 'classification' tag? > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > - > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact > L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk > EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ > Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk > Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Yes Martin, I meant "physical characteristics". In the US, a road is tagged "trunk" according to its physical characteristics, as Greg said previously in this thread. Le mar. 22 août 2017 à 11:06, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > > sent from a phone > > > On 21. Aug 2017, at 22:09, djakk djakk wrote: > > > > Actualy, "highway=*" shuffles importance and characteristic of roads. > May we add an "importance" key to roads ? > > > highway is generally about grid importance and in some cases also about > legal classification (motorways, footways etc.). "characteristic" is not > something I understand in this context, maybe you mean "physical > characteristics "? If so, then no. This was discussed and voted a long time > ago and shouldn't be changed IMHO, as it has proven to work. > > cheers, > Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
The thing is, I'm annoyed when there is a primary in the middle of a trunk road (example : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/44.3996/-70.9439) whereas in the U.K. this does not exist ... tagging rules should be as generic as possible, should not they ? djakk Le mer. 23 août 2017 à 01:26, Greg Troxel a écrit : > > djakk djakk writes: > > > Yes Martin, I meant "physical characteristics". In the US, a road is > tagged > > "trunk" according to its physical characteristics, as Greg said > previously > > in this thread. > > That's true, but it's also the case that the roads that are (properly) > tagged trunk are also worthy of being tagged primary in importance to > start with, plus becuase of the faster nature of trunk tend to be even a > little more important. So while choosing between primary/trunk is based > on physical characteristics, it's not really in conflict with the notion > of importance. Basically you can view trunk as "primary with honors" > and not be too far off. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
I think there are five keys to tag a road : 1) its importance in the network (super-primary, primary, secondary ...) 2) its administrative class (motorway, mottorrad) 3) its physical characteristics (example : no at-grade intersections) 4) the width of its lanes 5) its surface The current tagging system shuffles those 5 keys, "motorway" implies 2) motorway signs 3) no at-grade intersections 4) large lanes 5) asphalt surface, but for 1) it could be super-primary or just primary (think about suburban motorways network). djakk Le mer. 23 août 2017 à 11:14, djakk djakk a écrit : > The thing is, I'm annoyed when there is a primary in the middle of a trunk > road (example : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/44.3996/-70.9439) > whereas in the U.K. this does not exist ... tagging rules should be as > generic as possible, should not they ? > > > djakk > > Le mer. 23 août 2017 à 01:26, Greg Troxel a écrit : > >> >> djakk djakk writes: >> >> > Yes Martin, I meant "physical characteristics". In the US, a road is >> tagged >> > "trunk" according to its physical characteristics, as Greg said >> previously >> > in this thread. >> >> That's true, but it's also the case that the roads that are (properly) >> tagged trunk are also worthy of being tagged primary in importance to >> start with, plus becuase of the faster nature of trunk tend to be even a >> little more important. So while choosing between primary/trunk is based >> on physical characteristics, it's not really in conflict with the notion >> of importance. Basically you can view trunk as "primary with honors" >> and not be too far off. >> > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Oh yes I forgot these tags that are set by default by the highway key. Like highway=motorway implies sidewalk=no (fun fact : an exception does exist : https://www.lyonmag.com/article/76367/le-pont-de-la-mulatiere-va-enfin-se-transformer-pour-les-cyclistes : the signs says that the bridge is a motorway but it has a sidewalk) djakk Le mer. 23 août 2017 à 13:33, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit : > > > sent from a phone > > On 23. Aug 2017, at 11:54, djakk djakk wrote: > > I think there are five keys to tag a road : > 1) its importance in the network (super-primary, primary, secondary ...) > 2) its administrative class (motorway, mottorrad) > 3) its physical characteristics (example : no at-grade intersections) > 4) the width of its lanes > 5) its surface > > > > > not sure what you mean by "administrative class", but usually there aren't > any problems deciding for the class "motorway" or the motorroad property > (they are signed as such). > > Not sure about the width of lanes (probably there is something in lane > tagging). > > You forgot many more tags that might be relevant for highway tagging, e.g. > "width" (of the whole road), "lanes" (number of lanes), "lit", "oneway", > access restrictions, tracktype for tracks, service for service roads, > sidewalk as highway property, smoothness, maxspeed, maxheight, sac_scale, > etc. > Not all of them should be set on every road of course. > > > cheers, > Martin > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
> > If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to > downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2, > not "Trunk 2". In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably > primary. yes, that's what I want. Perhaps you should make your own render, and > submit change proposals to the standard style. A possibility might be > coloring roads by ref and hence legal designation, not highway tag, and > then to draw their width/weight based on physical characteristics. If > that's useful, and I think it might be, maybe people will adopt it. I already got this idea, but I won't rely on the ref and the legal designation (it may be well done in the UK and in the US, it is not the case in France), I need a local user-defined value for the importance of an road : the key "highway" as used in Japan or UK, with trunk as super-primary, or a new key "importance" which almost duplicates the highway value (trunk or super_primary, primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, local) Maybe I should make a test map and come back later :) djakk 2017-08-24 2:09 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel : > > djakk djakk writes: > > > The thing is, I'm annoyed when there is a primary in the middle of a > trunk > > road (example : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/44.3996/-70.9439) > > I haven't been there, but the notion that the road is fundamentally > different in the primary section is totally sensible and likely to be > true. > > > whereas in the U.K. this does not exist ... tagging rules should be as > > generic as possible, should not they ? > > In an alternate universe, where tags were developed from the ground up > by committee and vetted against each country's reality, before any > mapping was done, perhaps. But that's not what OSM is, for better or > for worse. There was a scheme that really made sense in the UK, and > it's been adapted. > > In the US (are you in the US?), there isn't any formal notion of trunk. > There are US highways, which were agreed long ago to map to primary, and > there are Interstates, which were agreed to map to motorway. This > mapping is arguably sensible. > > My impreession is that in the UK, there were A/B/C/U, and then later M > were created, and I'm not sure when trunk happened. > > In the US there were US and state highways, and then later I-. We > don't have a naming system for trunk. So therefore, we have adapted > high-grade physical to mean a better type of primary. And basically > almost everybody is OK with this. > > If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to > downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2, > not "Trunk 2". In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably > primary. > > The real problem is not that trunk means what it does. It's that > renderers and perhaps routers focus on the main highway tag, and make > results you don't like. Perhaps you should make your own render, and > submit change proposals to the standard style. A possibility might be > coloring roads by ref and hence legal designation, not highway tag, and > then to draw their width/weight based on physical characteristics. If > that's useful, and I think it might be, maybe people will adopt it. > > But changing the definition of trunk because you don't like the > rendering output is even worse than tagging for the renderer - it's > meta-tagging for the renderer :-) > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Name challenge - what to call the new OSM+Wikidata service?
Wikidata+OSM as the long name, and w+OSM or wOSM as the short name ? :) 2017-09-16 23:11 GMT+02:00 Yuri Astrakhan : > The new service is getting more and more usage, but it lacks the most > important thing - a good name. So far my two choices are: > > * wikosm > * wikidosm > > Suggestions? Votes? The service combines Wikidata and OpenStreetMap > databases, and uses SPARQL (query language) to search it, so might be good > to reflect that in the name. > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata%2BOSM_SPARQL_query_service > > P.S. I know this is the hardest problem after off-by-one and caching... > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Hello, I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, administrative-free, tends to the same osm map between countries. djakk Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it > by reading a wiki talk page [1]. > > Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway classification > as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of > controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), especially > regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement. > > In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to > seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] which > I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily > summarised like this: > - trunk: best routes between large/important cities > - primary: best routes between cities and above > - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above > - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above > - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above > > For example, the best route between two villages would be at least > tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or a > city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are > part of a route between more important places. > > It surely raises the problem of determining optimal routes. Maybe a > sensible criterion would be average travel time without traffic > congestion. A number of vehicles may be selected for this average - > could be motorcycle+car+bus+truck, or simply car+truck. > > Early results in my area [4, in Portuguese] seem promising and have > produced more consensus than any previous proposals. To me, this > method seems to: > - resist alternations in classification along the same road > - work across borders (where classification discontinuities are > expected because each country is using different classification > criteria) > - account for road network topology > - work in countries with mostly precarious/unpaved roads or > without/unknown official highway classes > - work between settlements as well as within settlements > > Borderline cases are probably inescapable in any system that does not > use solely criteria that are directly verifiable - from the ground, or > from the law. Maybe, in certain developed countries, the system is so > well organized that merely checking signs/laws is sufficient. That > does not mean it is like that everywhere on the planet. > > OSM has so far received a lot of input from communities in developed > countries (mostly Europe, North America and Australia) and hasn't > given much attention to less developed/organized countries. What comes > closest to this is what the HOT Team does, but the judgment of road > classification one can do from satellite images in a foreign country > is much more limited than the criteria that have been raised in this > thread so far. > > I wouldn't endorse tags such as maxspeed:practical due to lack of > verifiability (it should be obvious that different types of vehicles > would achieve different practical speeds). It is better to use the > legal speed in maxspeed=* and describe the practical reason for a > lower speed using surface=*, smoothness=*, and, who knows, maybe the > not yet approved hazard=* [5] (though that is intended for signed > hazards, not subjective/opinionated hazards). > > For the sake of long-term sanity, I also wouldn't mix the purpose of > one tag with the purpose of other tags. To describe the surface, there > is surface=*, smoothness=* and tracktype=*. To describe access rights, > there is access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc. To > describe legal speed, maxspeed=*. To describe curves, there's > geometry. > > Purpose, perhaps, is the main issue. What is the purpose of highway > classification? Is it to save us the work of adding extra tags? Is it > to allow the renderer to produce a cleaner output at low zoom levels? > Is it to allow routers to assume default speeds? Maybe to guide their > routing heuristics? Is it to express some sort of importance? If so, > by which perspective - urbanistic, traffic engineering, movement, > commercial value, cultural/fame, historic, some combination of those? > Should the purpose be the same in every country? > > It may be interesting to also discuss the classification adopted by > other maps. I don't have a reference for Google (originally TeleAtlas) > or Here.com (originally Navteq), but Waze publishes its per-country > road classification criteria in its wiki. [6-16] > > [1] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#change_.22high_performance.22_to_.22high_importance.22 > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags > [3] > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ftrebien/Drafts/Generic_highway_classification_principles#Schematic_diagram_and_general_comments > [4] https://forum.openstreetmap.or
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
I know that « trunk » is country-dependent but why not moving it to a worldwide definition ? Administrative classification could be moved to other tags :) djakk Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 16:06, Matej Lieskovský a écrit : > Greetings > I'd like to caution against using this system globally. In Czechia, roads > are formally classified into classes, which influence signage, ref numbers > and so on. Deploying this system here would make the tag confusing/useless > and would likely face enormous backlash. I have no problems with using this > system in countries without a clearly defined road classification, but > please don't touch the countries where there is no doubt about what class > any given road is. > Happy mapping! > > On 22 February 2018 at 16:20, djakk djakk wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, >> administrative-free, tends to the same osm map between countries. >> >> djakk >> >> Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien < >> fernando.treb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >>> Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it >>> by reading a wiki talk page [1]. >>> >>> Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway classification >>> as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of >>> controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), especially >>> regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement. >>> >>> In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to >>> seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] which >>> I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily >>> summarised like this: >>> - trunk: best routes between large/important cities >>> - primary: best routes between cities and above >>> - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above >>> - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above >>> - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above >>> >>> For example, the best route between two villages would be at least >>> tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or a >>> city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are >>> part of a route between more important places. >>> >>> It surely raises the problem of determining optimal routes. Maybe a >>> sensible criterion would be average travel time without traffic >>> congestion. A number of vehicles may be selected for this average - >>> could be motorcycle+car+bus+truck, or simply car+truck. >>> >>> Early results in my area [4, in Portuguese] seem promising and have >>> produced more consensus than any previous proposals. To me, this >>> method seems to: >>> - resist alternations in classification along the same road >>> - work across borders (where classification discontinuities are >>> expected because each country is using different classification >>> criteria) >>> - account for road network topology >>> - work in countries with mostly precarious/unpaved roads or >>> without/unknown official highway classes >>> - work between settlements as well as within settlements >>> >>> Borderline cases are probably inescapable in any system that does not >>> use solely criteria that are directly verifiable - from the ground, or >>> from the law. Maybe, in certain developed countries, the system is so >>> well organized that merely checking signs/laws is sufficient. That >>> does not mean it is like that everywhere on the planet. >>> >>> OSM has so far received a lot of input from communities in developed >>> countries (mostly Europe, North America and Australia) and hasn't >>> given much attention to less developed/organized countries. What comes >>> closest to this is what the HOT Team does, but the judgment of road >>> classification one can do from satellite images in a foreign country >>> is much more limited than the criteria that have been raised in this >>> thread so far. >>> >>> I wouldn't endorse tags such as maxspeed:practical due to lack of >>> verifiability (it should be obvious that different types of vehicles >>> would achieve different practical speeds). It is better to use the >>> legal speed in maxspeed=* and describe the practical reason for a >>> lower speed using surface=*, smoothness=*, and, who knows, maybe the >>> not yet approved hazard=* [5] (though
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Don’t worry, when the official system is good, lik in Czechia, it matches Fernando’s suggestion :) djakk Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 18:32, Matej Lieskovský a écrit : > Don't get me wrong, this system might work well for countries without an > official system, but what do you expect to happen in the EU? > Will we have "highway=primary" + "class=tertiary" because some random road > happens to be a shortcut? Or do you expect us in Czechia to use "class=II" > while germans use "class=S" so that it actually matches the signage? Will > the renderer parse ref numbers (and ignore the main tag) or will we receive > hundreds of complaints about some section of the road having (what every > local resident will consider to be) the wrong class? > > How do you determine "important cities" when even the line between towns > and cities is country-dependant? Or is using administrative differences > only not OK for roads? > > Even Waze actually follows local administration. > > > Long story short: I am strongly against deploying this system in countries > with a functioning official classification system. > > On 23 February 2018 at 18:06, Fernando Trebien > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Administrative classification is not strictly related everywhere to >> signage, structure and access rights. >> >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:12 PM, djakk djakk >> wrote: >> > I know that « trunk » is country-dependent but why not moving it to a >> > worldwide definition ? Administrative classification could be moved to >> other >> > tags :) >> > >> > >> > djakk >> > >> > Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 16:06, Matej Lieskovský < >> lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> >> > a écrit : >> >> >> >> Greetings >> >> I'd like to caution against using this system globally. In Czechia, >> roads >> >> are formally classified into classes, which influence signage, ref >> numbers >> >> and so on. Deploying this system here would make the tag >> confusing/useless >> >> and would likely face enormous backlash. I have no problems with using >> this >> >> system in countries without a clearly defined road classification, but >> >> please don't touch the countries where there is no doubt about what >> class >> >> any given road is. >> >> Happy mapping! >> >> >> >> On 22 February 2018 at 16:20, djakk djakk >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, >> >>> administrative-free, tends to the same osm map between countries. >> >>> >> >>> djakk >> >>> >> >>> Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien >> >>> a écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>> Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it >> >>>> by reading a wiki talk page [1]. >> >>>> >> >>>> Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway >> classification >> >>>> as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of >> >>>> controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), >> especially >> >>>> regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement. >> >>>> >> >>>> In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to >> >>>> seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] >> which >> >>>> I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily >> >>>> summarised like this: >> >>>> - trunk: best routes between large/important cities >> >>>> - primary: best routes between cities and above >> >>>> - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above >> >>>> - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above >> >>>> - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above >> >>>> >> >>>> For example, the best route between two villages would be at least >> >>>> tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or >> a >> >>>> city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are >> >>>> part of a route between more important places. >> >>>> >> >>>> It surely raises the problem of determining
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
We could start with Brasil, France, UK, and Czechia. But in France and in Brasil the trunk definition is not set yet ... I've started to use a new tag in Brittany : traffic ; low-intermediate-heavy-trunk, to show the amount of vehicles per day. Probably that in combination of other tags (lanes, surface, width) it could replace the highway tag. It is probably easier to make new tags than changing old tags :) djakk Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 20:44, Matej Lieskovský a écrit : > Could we perhaps start a wiki page to collect information on how every > country classifies roads? Something like > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence but > intended for the global community instead of the local mappers? More detail > and less non-english text. > > On 23 February 2018 at 20:11, Fernando Trebien > wrote: > >> I'm glad it is not so much of a problem in Czechia and I hope it would > > rarely be a problem anywhere. >> >> In any case, the idea can be developed further. Matej raises some >> interesting points that can account for better classification. For >> example, we could add some bias towards regional and/or national >> routes, in order to avoid shortcuts (though not forbid them completely >> if they are significant); likewise, we could add some bias to >> infrastructure, such as pavement quality, signage quality, feasibility >> for large vehicles (such as trucks), etc. >> >> Most interesting I think is to share with the global community how the >> local community understands classification. Are access rights really >> important to the map user, or is it only important to mappers? If so, >> why can't the renderer parse access tags to decide how to represent >> the way? (I believe that was the intention when motorroad=* was >> proposed.) >> >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:29 PM, djakk djakk >> wrote: >> > Don’t worry, when the official system is good, lik in Czechia, it >> matches >> > Fernando’s suggestion :) >> > >> > djakk >> > >> > >> > Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 18:32, Matej Lieskovský < >> lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> >> > a écrit : >> >> >> >> Don't get me wrong, this system might work well for countries without >> an >> >> official system, but what do you expect to happen in the EU? >> >> Will we have "highway=primary" + "class=tertiary" because some random >> road >> >> happens to be a shortcut? Or do you expect us in Czechia to use >> "class=II" >> >> while germans use "class=S" so that it actually matches the signage? >> Will >> >> the renderer parse ref numbers (and ignore the main tag) or will we >> receive >> >> hundreds of complaints about some section of the road having (what >> every >> >> local resident will consider to be) the wrong class? >> >> >> >> How do you determine "important cities" when even the line between >> towns >> >> and cities is country-dependant? Or is using administrative >> differences only >> >> not OK for roads? >> >> >> >> Even Waze actually follows local administration. >> >> >> >> >> >> Long story short: I am strongly against deploying this system in >> countries >> >> with a functioning official classification system. >> >> >> >> On 23 February 2018 at 18:06, Fernando Trebien >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> Administrative classification is not strictly related everywhere to >> >>> signage, structure and access rights. >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:12 PM, djakk djakk >> >>> wrote: >> >>> > I know that « trunk » is country-dependent but why not moving it >> to a >> >>> > worldwide definition ? Administrative classification could be moved >> to >> >>> > other >> >>> > tags :) >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > djakk >> >>> > >> >>> > Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 16:06, Matej Lieskovský >> >>> > >> >>> > a écrit : >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Greetings >> >>> >> I'd like to caution against using this system globally. In Czechia, >> >>> >> roads >> >>> >> are formally classified into classes, whi
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
I would tag the amount of traffic (official count or estimation) + the width of the lanes (bidirectional with no hard shoulder ?) + an appropriated renderer to show heavy traffic + narrow road with a thin red stroke. Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 21:28, Mark Wagner a écrit : > On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:14:42 -0200 > Fernando Trebien wrote: > > > Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it > > by reading a wiki talk page [1]. > > > > Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway classification > > as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of > > controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), especially > > regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement. > > > > In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to > > seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] which > > I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily > > summarised like this: > > - trunk: best routes between large/important cities > > - primary: best routes between cities and above > > - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above > > - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above > > - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above > > "Best" and "large/important" are both rather subjective. Further, this > proposed system gives rather questionable results at times. > > For example, the fastest route between the cities of Fargo (largest city > in North Dakota, population 120,000) and Rapid City (second-largest > city in South Dakota, population 68,000) follows I-29 and I-90, while > the shortest follows I-94 for a ways, then cuts cross-country on a mix > of minor state highways to save 70 miles while taking about five minutes > longer (on a total trip time of 470 minutes). > > Which one is the "best"? If it's the fast route, there's no issue: > both roads are already "highway=motorway". > > If it's the short route, how should it be classified? Fargo and Rapid > City are both larger than any city within 200 miles, which would > seem to make them "large/important", but even by western American > standards, they're pretty small in an absolute sense. Trunk, primary, > or secondary? > > -- > Mark > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : > There is something I don't get. > Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « > discontinuity »? > In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different > rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I > like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this > rendering for decades. > JB. > > Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found > > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to > > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). > > > > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, > > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). > > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the > > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very > > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious > > which is the main route between each pair of cities. As expected, the > > method also found out the best ways through and around Praha when > > going across it. This could also be slightly improved - for example, > > with little extra time, it is easier to recommend going through route > > 6 and then Karlovarská than through route 5 and Bucharova. > > > > I've checked the three small secondary segments using Street View. > > Their physical structure is quite good. If still considered > > undersirable, there are alternative main ways that increase the total > > time of travel very slightly. Not all routers agreed on taking them > > anyway. > > > > [1] https://i.imgur.com/qFGSveX.jpg > > > > ___ > > talk mailing list > > talk@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance ? 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský a écrit : > 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend > www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more > detailed map. > 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state > on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary > due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway > standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our > local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to > České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that > there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can > already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České > Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was > built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to > expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. > > I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but > elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching > anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will > certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. > > You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. I > think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where > road classification is well-defined. > > Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. > Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we > can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will > likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but > I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some > random person who wants to break our local road classification system > "because it will look nicer". > > On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: > >> Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ >> >> djakk >> >> >> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : >> >>> There is something I don't get. >>> Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « >>> discontinuity »? >>> In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different >>> rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I >>> like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this >>> rendering for decades. >>> JB. >>> >>> Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : >>> > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found >>> > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to >>> > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). >>> > >>> > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, >>> > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). >>> > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the >>> > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very >>> > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious >>> > which is the main route between each pair of cities. As expected, the >>> > method also found out the best ways through and around Praha when >>> > going across it. This could also be slightly improved - for example, >>> > with little extra time, it is easier to recommend going through route >>> > 6 and then Karlovarská than through route 5 and Bucharova. >>> > >>> > I've checked the three small secondary segments using Street View. >>> > Their physical structure is quite good. If still considered >>> > undersirable, there are alternative main ways that increase the total >>> > time of travel very slightly. Not all routers agreed on taking them >>> > anyway. >>> > >>> > [1] https://i.imgur.com/qFGSveX.jpg >>> > >>> > ___ >>> > talk mailing list >>> > talk@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> talk mailing list >>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >> > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Matej, you don’t have to answer quickly, you can answer one time per week if you prefer, the strong arguments will still weight well :) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:30, djakk djakk a écrit : > There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : > 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on > physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the importance > ? > 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition all > over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are > country-dependant are not that common, aren’t they ?) > > djakk > > > Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský < > lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend >> www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more >> detailed map. >> 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the state >> on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a primary >> due to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway >> standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of roads, our >> local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen to >> České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information that >> there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can >> already tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České >> Budějovice (by looking at the map), but I also want to know that it was >> built as a primary road and not as a trunk - that means that I'm going to >> expect more single-level junctions and only two lanes for most of the way. >> >> I agree, our trunk roads are a little fuzzy on their definition, but >> elevating random primary roads to trunk is a loss of data for us. Touching >> anything else than reclassifying primary to trunk et vice versa will >> certainly be considered as vandalism in Czechia. >> >> You are demonstrating that you can guess the road class from other data. >> I think it's cute, but does not match on-the-ground data in countries where >> road classification is well-defined. >> >> Look, I've spent a lot of time on this and I have better things to do. >> Fill in the info for your regions on the wiki and then we can see what we >> can do. Until then, bear in mind that "harmonising" European roads will >> likely get you banned. I don't want to sound like I'm threatening you, but >> I've probably spent all the time I'm willing to spend on arguing with some >> random person who wants to break our local road classification system >> "because it will look nicer". >> >> On 24 February 2018 at 07:59, djakk djakk wrote: >> >>> Yes, but this rendering does not change when a road crosses a border ^^ >>> >>> djakk >>> >>> >>> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 05:43, JB a écrit : >>> >>>> There is something I don't get. >>>> Draw primary the same color as trunk and you have no more « >>>> discontinuity »? >>>> In France, some commercial map (the most sold, I think) use a different >>>> rendering for trunk and primary, because you drive faster on trunks. I >>>> like it, I think they like it, because they have been using this >>>> rendering for decades. >>>> JB. >>>> >>>> Le 24/02/2018 à 04:45, Fernando Trebien a écrit : >>>> > As an exercise (and I'm curious about your thoughts on this), I found >>>> > the main routes between place=city within Czechia (didn't have time to >>>> > include cities in adjacent countries, bear that in mind). >>>> > >>>> > Here's the result [1] using the old colour scheme (motorway=blue, >>>> > trunk=green, primary=red; with a little mistake: secondary=yellow). >>>> > Top image uses the current classifications, and bottom image is the >>>> > result if city-city routes are classified as trunks. Looks very >>>> > similar to most other maps. Just by looking at it, it's quite obvious >>>> > which is the main route between each pair of cities. As expected, the >>>> > method also found out the best ways through and around Praha when >>>> > going across it. This could also be slightly improved - for example, >>>> > with little extra time, it is easier to recommend going through route >>>> > 6 and then Karlova
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
Yes, we should be able to tag secondary motorway or secondary motorroads. ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/48.8719/2.4496 - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.57211/-2.82279) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 13:34, Fernando Trebien a écrit : > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:16 AM, Matej Lieskovský > wrote: > > One last observation: > > Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Poland and > Slovakia > > all use a similar system where highway=trunk is "motorway-like", with > trunk > > either implying motorroad status, or being a prerequisite for it. > > In Brazil, the highways that would most closely correspond to the idea > of a motorroad are actually considered inferior because they lack > shoulders and are, thus, less safe for travel. They are usually built > like that to cut costs, not as an ultimately desirable design, so they > tend to be minor, not major routes. > > TagInfo [1] also tells me that there are many motorroads in OSM that > are primary, not trunk. Probably not in the countries you mentioned, > but they seem to exist in the UK and in Norway (where there may even > be some motorroads classified as secondary) [2]. > > [1] https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/motorroad=yes#combinations > [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorroad > > > On 24 February 2018 at 11:08, Matej Lieskovský < > lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> 1) > >> Trunk in Czechia is "motorway-like". > >> Feel free to document local conventions here: > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes > >> Also, see this: > >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence > >> > >> 2) > >> Highway classification is not really a measurable thing. I'd compare it > to > >> how admin_level works. There is some equivalence, but everyone > understands > >> that admin_level=4 means something slightly different in Czechia and in > the > >> US. > >> > >> I'd be very careful about global definitions as we might easily end up > >> with entire countries without even a highway=primary. I mean, how can > Brazil > >> have unpaved trunk roads? Does Iceland get to keep its trunk road when > it > >> has only one city of more than 35000 inhabitants? Do we get to keep > trunk > >> roads when there are several cities in China with more people than the > >> entire Czech Republic? By similar logic the outer border of Czech > Republic > >> should be approximately admin_level=4 (to match US states) and trust me > that > >> EU integration is not yet at the point where that would be acceptable. > :) > >> > >> Let's get the wiki filled in, we might be wiser afterwards. > >> > >> @djakk: Thanks for making the discussion a little more organized. > >> > >> On 24 February 2018 at 10:30, djakk djakk > wrote: > >>> > >>> There is 2 « independant » things in the debate : > >>> 1) trunk definition - what is a trunk, a motorway-like road - based on > >>> physical characteristics- or a super-primary road - based on the > importance > >>> ? > >>> 2) wordwilde trunk definition ? - should we have the same definition > all > >>> over the world of what is highway= trunk ? (value that are > country-dependant > >>> are not that common, aren’t they ?) > >>> > >>> djakk > >>> > >>> > >>> Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 10:07, Matej Lieskovský > >>> a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> 1) If you want to look at a professional map of Czechia, I'd recommend > >>>> www.mapy.cz over google maps as that is the most used and far more > detailed > >>>> map. > >>>> 2) I agree that the discontinuities are ugly, but they reflect the > state > >>>> on the ground. That section around Sulec is a trunk instead of a > primary due > >>>> to the fact that it is a section of future motorway built to motorway > >>>> standard. While your system heavily preferences "importance" of > roads, our > >>>> local system reflects reality. Declaring the entire road from Pilsen > to > >>>> České Budějovice as trunk due to its importance loses the information > that > >>>> there is a section that was built as a motorway link to Písek. I can > already > >>>> tell that the road is important because it links Pilsen and České > Bud
Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
In addition of the « traffic » tag, there could be the « importance » tag (already use for railways - regional or national), with 5 values : neighbourhood, city, regional, national, continental. The example of the trunk road around Island : traffic=low, importance=national :) djakk Le sam. 24 févr. 2018 à 14:22, djakk djakk a écrit : > Yes, we should be able to tag secondary motorway or secondary motorroads. ( > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/48.8719/2.4496 - https > ://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/48.57211/-2.82279) > > djakk > >> >> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
I don’t get why highway=footway + area=yes is considered as wrong tagging ! djakk Le mer. 8 août 2018 à 12:52, Tomasz Wójcik a écrit : > As highway=footway etc. tags are set to "should not be used on areas" on > Wiki, and mapping them in combination with area=yes is not documented at > all and considered as wrong tagging by part of users, there is a key > "area:highway=*" (133k uses at the moment). Part of users still map footway > areas as a combination anyway, propably because it's rendered by default > style. Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging schemes > for the same feature, so we should discuss this topic. > > I vote for area:highway=* key, because it's simpler, and it gives a > possibility to show also street areas with crossings in the future. > > * Wiki with specyfications of a:h=* for certain keys: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area:highway > * TagInfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area:highway > * area:highway=* visualisation: http://osmapa.pl/w/area > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
A linear road is also a surface, the surface is useless at zoom=8 but useful at zoom=16. Like waterways, both can coexist. djakk Le mer. 8 août 2018 à 18:19, Tobias Knerr a écrit : > On 08.08.2018 12:49, Tomasz Wójcik wrote: > > Due to our rules, that we shouldn't have 2 active tagging > > schemes for the same feature > > These tagging schemes are for 2 different real-world features: > * roads/paths (i.e. linear features with a direction) > * plazas/squares (i.e. open areas where people will walk across in all > directions) > > Linear roads/paths are mapped as highway=* ways, optionally with an > additional area:highway=* polygon. > > Plazas/squares are mapped as highway=* + area=yes polygons. > > So the area:highway key is never an alternative to highway polygons with > area=yes! In any given situation, only one or the other will be correct. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=* + area=yes vs area:highway=*
No, all highways are areas :) Mapping them as a line is a manual generalization ;) djakk Le ven. 10 août 2018 à 12:15, Andy Townsend a écrit : > > > So basing on your opinions, it looks like highway=* + area=yes isn't > incorrect, it's just not documented. > > I'd suggest that it depends what you're mapping. If it's a predominantly > linear feature then it would be wrong to try and "somehow record the width" > using area=yes on the highway tag - use area:highway (or width) for that. > > If it really is an area, then area=yes would make sense. Most highways > are not, though. > > Best Regards, > Andy > > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Plus code grid service
Well, it is possible for a human to memorize it :) Julien « djakk » Le lun. 19 nov. 2018 à 17:22, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit : > It is still not clear to me why new way of writing latitude and longitude > is supposed to be interesting. > > 19. Nov 2018 16:43 by drinc...@google.com: > > We're really excited to launch a free plus code grid service at > https://grid.plus.codes > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
