Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/8 Jeffrey Martin : > Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different > classes of information, e.g. > surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government > classification, > popularity, etc.; and then the renderer would figure out how to display the > information. we do have tags for these. And every renderer can select and choose how to display them. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
I haven't been participating for awhile, but wasn't some committee going to come up with a solution? Ideally there would be separate tagging systems for all the different classes of information, e.g. surface type, width, number of lanes; route numbers and codes, government classification, popularity, etc.; and then the renderer would figure out how to display the information. However, in a given area there may only be five or six kinds of roads and it obviously easier to collect some kind of general description, e.g. four lane state highway, then to type in all those details. Unfortunately people in different areas simply apply whatever label will give them the rendering they want instead of fixing the rendering. On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/8/7 Roy Wallace : > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard > > Mann wrote: > >> As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified > > > I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below: > > > > Presently IMHO it's an absolute mess. Try reading the whole page > > through once, then see if you can explain to someone what it means. Or > > better yet, get a non-OSM'er to read it and see if they understand. > > Here's another idea: there appears to be several distinct definitions > > of the tag in current use, according to talk and talk-au mailing list > > discussion e.g. > > > > 1. urban roads in industrial areas less important than highway=tertiary > > 2. "something bigger than highway=residential but smaller than > > highway=tertiary" > > 3. rural roads less important than highway=tertiary > > 4. "a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential > > areas"; "a road roughly equal to residential but without people living > > there" > > 5. "the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in > > urban or rural areas" > > > > Rather than trying to unify the different usages into one big > > confusing mess, maybe it would be better to separately explain each > > current usage? i.e. "This tag is used if the road is A or B or C or D > > or E". This more closely reflects reality and IMHO will not be any > > harder to read than the current mess. This could also lead the way to > > *eventually* replace each different usage with a tag of its own. > > I completely agree with Roy. Be it for the mess created as for the > summary of current use. Let's use this. > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > -- Jeffrey John Martin dogs...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/7 Roy Wallace : > On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard > Mann wrote: >> As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified > I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below: > > Presently IMHO it's an absolute mess. Try reading the whole page > through once, then see if you can explain to someone what it means. Or > better yet, get a non-OSM'er to read it and see if they understand. > Here's another idea: there appears to be several distinct definitions > of the tag in current use, according to talk and talk-au mailing list > discussion e.g. > > 1. urban roads in industrial areas less important than highway=tertiary > 2. "something bigger than highway=residential but smaller than > highway=tertiary" > 3. rural roads less important than highway=tertiary > 4. "a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential > areas"; "a road roughly equal to residential but without people living > there" > 5. "the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in > urban or rural areas" > > Rather than trying to unify the different usages into one big > confusing mess, maybe it would be better to separately explain each > current usage? i.e. "This tag is used if the road is A or B or C or D > or E". This more closely reflects reality and IMHO will not be any > harder to read than the current mess. This could also lead the way to > *eventually* replace each different usage with a tag of its own. I completely agree with Roy. Be it for the mess created as for the summary of current use. Let's use this. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified > > Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it) I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below: Presently IMHO it's an absolute mess. Try reading the whole page through once, then see if you can explain to someone what it means. Or better yet, get a non-OSM'er to read it and see if they understand. Here's another idea: there appears to be several distinct definitions of the tag in current use, according to talk and talk-au mailing list discussion e.g. 1. urban roads in industrial areas less important than highway=tertiary 2. "something bigger than highway=residential but smaller than highway=tertiary" 3. rural roads less important than highway=tertiary 4. "a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas"; "a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there" 5. "the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in urban or rural areas" Rather than trying to unify the different usages into one big confusing mess, maybe it would be better to separately explain each current usage? i.e. "This tag is used if the road is A or B or C or D or E". This more closely reflects reality and IMHO will not be any harder to read than the current mess. This could also lead the way to *eventually* replace each different usage with a tag of its own. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/6 Richard Mann : > As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified > > Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it) > actually there are 3 things in the main definition (1st phrase) I don't consider good ideas: "Public road without (official) classification, primarily for access to properties, typically paved, non-residential." 1. classification is not unambiguous (what kind of classification). What about countries with classification for more kind of streets? Shall they invent another highway-class for small roads, because there is a classification for smalles roads in there country? 2. streets primarily or solely for access to properties are IMHO tagged as service 3. "typically paved" is a definition that depends strongly on context, and in wide parts of the world I suppose it not to be true I think this will cause more trouble than it can solve. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it) Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally, > due to the federal organisation), as in "Baden-Württemberg" it is > generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in > the rest of Germany you can use them if there is not a sign to forbid > it (which in some parts is nearly always, in others it is generally > tolerated but not recommended to use). "Generally tolerated but not recommended" is pretty close to the English country lane. We have various devices for discouraging people (Broken Road, Unsuitable for HGVs, Quiet Lane), but none have much legal force. I think the distinction between a highway=track+tracktype=grade1 and a highway=unclassified (rural) is quite fine, and would wish that Mapnik would treat them more similarly. But that's no reason to alter the tagging. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/6 Liz : > On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: >> > And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a >> > really, >> > really bad idea. >> >> Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :) > > and then we find out that whatever "track" translates to in German is not the > same as what "track" means in Au. > so again we have widely used tags who are about to change their meaning actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally, due to the federal organisation), as in "Baden-Württemberg" it is generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in the rest of Germany you can use them if there is not a sign to forbid it (which in some parts is nearly always, in others it is generally tolerated but not recommended to use). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > "Rural is lower than residential" doesn't arise, because by > definition "residential" means a built-up area, so it ain't > rural. Exactly. > I would humbly suggest highway=minor is a better tag > because Someone already did and it went no where. My proposal wasn't just about highway=rural but clarifying highway=unclassified. > - the adjective "rural" could apply to a motorway in the > countryside Hence the references to unsealed, single lane etc. > - it's already in the Mapnik stylesheet ;) Well that's just plain silly, mapnik shouldn't be told about anything not agreed upon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Shaun McDonald wrote: > The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used > instead as the new way of doing things. Agree, but you wouldn't test against a landuse polygon anyway, you'd test against an urban area polygon. Abutters is just a reasonable shortcut to flag up the handful of urban unclassifieds for those who find testing against polygons (or looking them up on websites) unreliable, or too much like hard work. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > That is a lack of data problem, there is nothing that you > can do about it other than go out and do some mapping! I penned this email about a week ago. > I was watching the State of the Map Canadian talk and they point out how low > the population density of Canada is, also the fact most of the population > lives within about 100 miles of the US border. Australia has a lower > population density but suffers the same fate when it comes to the majority of > the population clustering around the border essentially. > > Most information is from CIA world fact book site, which gives July 2009 > estimates. > > Landmass in Mill. Sq km > --- > 2. Canada 10 > 3. USA9.8 > 6. Aust. 7.7 > 85.UK 0.2 > > Population in Mill > -- > 4. USA307 (82% urban) > 23.UK 61 (90% urban) > 39.Canada 33 (80% urban) > 55.Aust. 21 (89% urban) > > Information from wikipedia is from some 2004 estimate but the order is what I > was after the actual density can be calculated. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density > > Population Density (People per Sq km) > - > 52. UK 305.0 > 177.USA 31.3 > 227.Canada 3.3 > 232.Aust. 2.7 > 238.Denmark 0.03 > > Density Map > > http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/images/populatilon-dencity.gif > > To sum up, Australia is the 6th largest country in the world, by area > excluding Antarctica etc, yet almost the lowest population density in the > world, and for the most part Canada is in the same boat. Feel free to help us out since the UK is more densely populated and has almost 3x the population of Australia. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On 6 Aug 2009, at 12:06, John Smith wrote: --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann > wrote: Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area polygon. The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used instead as the new way of doing things. They don't always exist either. That's the problem, lots of Australia is just blank or very near to it. That is a lack of data problem, there is nothing that you can do about it other than go out and do some mapping! Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: > > The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for > > the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well. > > Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area > polygon. > > Richard abutters has not been used in our mapping instructions for some time so we don't have any marked ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann wrote: > Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as > using an urban area polygon. They don't always exist either. That's the problem, lots of Australia is just blank or very near to it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
John Smith wrote: > The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or > has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is > lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but > higher than track "Rural is lower than residential" doesn't arise, because by definition "residential" means a built-up area, so it ain't rural. I would humbly suggest highway=minor is a better tag because - the adjective "rural" could apply to a motorway in the countryside - it's already in the Mapnik stylesheet ;) cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Smith wrote: > The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the > routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well. Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area polygon. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Mann wrote: > I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start > from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though > the documentation should be improved. We don't really > need another level in the countryside, and there are other > ways of coping with the fact that a rural unclassified and > an urban unclassified are physically different (I would > propose recommending the use of abutters for urban ones, and > discouraging it for rural ones). The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well. A lot of towns simply aren't marked in rural areas of Australia, where as a number of roads that would be marked like this are already mapped. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
I'm coming to sympathise with the rendering gods, this really is going round in circles isn't it! The advantage of a new highway tag is a nice clear match between tag and reality, leading to better performance by taggers, renderers and routers. The disadvantage is confusion in the transitionary period (which could be years) and the effort of retagging. I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though the documentation should be improved. We don't really need another level in the countryside, and there are other ways of coping with the fact that a rural unclassified and an urban unclassified are physically different (I would propose recommending the use of abutters for urban ones, and discouraging it for rural ones). I don't think the proposal for highway=rural is going to be agreed (though making it was helpful in progressing the debate). So I'll probably have a go at improving the wording in the wiki (initially by adding rather than deleting). Richard On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Smith wrote: > > --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > > That's proposing highway=rural as something less > > significant than tertiary > > (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something > > less significant > > than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that > > in rural areas). > > The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or has as > much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is lower than > unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but higher than track > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > That's proposing highway=rural as something less > significant than tertiary > (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something > less significant > than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that > in rural areas). The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or has as much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is lower than unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but higher than track ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
John Smith wrote: > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than > > unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads > that > > aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable > > standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). > This is what I was trying to explain. Ok, but that's not what your proposal says on the wiki. (You're delta_foxtrot2, right? I do wish people would be consistent with names/pseudonyms...) "I am proposing highway=rural for roads that wouldn't be classified as tertiary due to low volumes of traffic. Rural roads are generally single lane, generally unsealed but all weather. Rural roads may or may not be through roads they are for connecting farms to urban areas and between urban areas where the funding hasn't been made available to seal the road." That's proposing highway=rural as something less significant than tertiary (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something less significant than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that in rural areas). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--highway%3Dunclassified-currently-is-too-ambiguous%2C-so-here%27s-my-proposal-to-fix-it.-tp24821055p24841081.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Liz wrote: > and then we find out that whatever "track" translates to in > German is not the > same as what "track" means in Au. > so again we have widely used tags who are about to change > their meaning It means about the same from what I've seen, a forestry type track, which isn't the same thing as a rural road. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > > And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a > > really, > > really bad idea. > > Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :) and then we find out that whatever "track" translates to in German is not the same as what "track" means in Au. so again we have widely used tags who are about to change their meaning ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Thu, 6/8/09, Ulf Möller wrote: > And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a > really, > really bad idea. Well I was right, it is too ambiguous :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Frederik Ramm schrieb: > This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the > majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to > residential but without people living there. And suddenly changing the meaning of a widely used tag is a really, really bad idea. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/5 John Smith : > > > > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > >> You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by >> whether there are other things around in the area. That's >> the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also >> do some preprocessing if you need to. > > That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 completely > different purposes and that could mean they need to be rendered differently. no, I don't see it like this. Unclassified is the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in urban or rural areas. The physical state might be different, but hey, who uses physical state for main classification? ;-) > Also not all towns are mapped out any where near usable levels in Australia > so this wouldn't really be appropriate until such times as they are mapped > out. that's true. Routing should work before all landuses are mapped. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area > to mean "less > significant than highway=residential", you're doing it > completely contrary > to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition > wrong. I didn't say I was doing that at any point in time, I have tried to compare rural roads to residential meaning lesser than residential. > Where we fail is that we don't have anything less > significant than > unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, > country roads that > aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable > standard of upkeep > (i.e. a road, not a track). This is what I was trying to explain. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
2009/8/5 Elena of Valhalla : > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote: >> I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* >> areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than >> residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they >> generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver >> was feeling. > > where would this differ from an highway=track? well, it's to substitute unclassified, a track is not a street but a way for agricultural and forestal traffic. The difference is the function. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote: > > On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote: > >> On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: >> >> > I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public >> > body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made >> > for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that >> > lower-grade >> > shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, >> > UK-style). >> >> That's still too much of a physical definition (: >> How about: >> >> highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access >> to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in >> built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting >> roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used >> for passing through the rural area. >> >> A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on >> such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for >> cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing >> them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on >> rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width >> and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes >> or ways). >> > > Am I right in seeing that you think that residential streets are not for > cycling along? Then explain why the majority of the London Cycle Network is > along residential streets. Many of the rural roads I've been on are quiet > country lanes with little traffic, some of which are part of the National > Cycle Network. So what I wrote about bicycles is not valid - thanks for clearing that up. Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote: > On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: > >> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a >> public >> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision >> is made >> for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that >> lower-grade >> shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal >> widenings, >> UK-style). > > That's still too much of a physical definition (: > How about: > > highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct > access > to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road > in > built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting > roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to > be used > for passing through the rural area. > > A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are > present on > such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for > cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing > them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on > rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road > width > and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle > lanes > or ways). > Am I right in seeing that you think that residential streets are not for cycling along? Then explain why the majority of the London Cycle Network is along residential streets. Many of the rural roads I've been on are quiet country lanes with little traffic, some of which are part of the National Cycle Network. The way that you disambiguate the different types of unclassified road is by adding other properties to the road like the max speed, the width, number of lanes and the surface. Then whatever is using the osm data can use the specific data in whatever way they think is most appropriate. Please stop trying to come up with more and more highway values. Shaun > A problem could be that rural areas may have a whole network of > roads that > all look the same. I suppose they can all be tagged highway=rural in > such > a case(?), but does that match the above description? > > > Christiaan > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote: > I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public > body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made > for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade > shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, > UK-style). That's still too much of a physical definition (: How about: highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used for passing through the rural area. A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes or ways). A problem could be that rural areas may have a whole network of roads that all look the same. I suppose they can all be tagged highway=rural in such a case(?), but does that match the above description? Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
John Smith wrote: > That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 > completely different purposes No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent meaning. If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean "less significant than highway=residential", you're doing it completely contrary to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition wrong. Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads that aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). highway=minor would work, or even your suggested highway=rural - but _not_ as a replacement for unclassified in rural areas, but rather, an addition. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--highway%3Dunclassified-currently-is-too-ambiguous%2C-so-here%27s-my-proposal-to-fix-it.-tp24821055p24832503.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John Smith wrote: > but the emails in the last day or 2 have gone no where in addressing the > issue, Seriously, there's a lot of people subscribed to this list, and very few joining the conversation. Maybe everyone is watching 5 or 6 people getting themselves into gordian knots and thinking to themselves that they'd rather spend the time mapping than discussing what is, after all, almost completely irrelevant to anyone who doesn't have OCD. It's like listening to a conversation about sorting dingbats alphabetically. Maybe when we have all the roads in the world entered, named and with the right geometry we'll have nothing better to do than decide the difference between tertiary, minor, unclassified and whatnot. Until then, there are simply more important things to do. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Mann wrote: > The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is > there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural > "unclassifieds" would clarify matters, and > highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be > better for us to have something we can agree on, rather than > having some people use "unclassified", some people > seeking to redefine unclassified, and others using > highway=track+tracktype=grade1. Well as I posted earlier, to me there is a clear distinction from track and rural road. > I'd define a "rural" as a road which is > (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public > access, but where only partial provision is made for > vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that > lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional > formal or informal widenings, UK-style). The width of rural roads varies depending on the type of traffic using it, like 5 trailer road trains to lesser roads. http://outbacktowing.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tanker2.jpg Try and get one of those things down a dirt track :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Proposal: +1. Thanks The question whether urban "unclassifieds" are at the same level of urban "residentials" can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it. The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and clearly. A new tag for rural "unclassifieds" would clarify matters, and highway=rural is as good a suggestion as any. It would be better for us to have something we can agree on, rather than having some people use "unclassified", some people seeking to redefine unclassified, and others using highway=track+tracktype=grade1. I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings, UK-style). Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > > Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a > proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where > yet the same problem still exists. > > I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's > meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than > residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. > > I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* > areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than > residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they > generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver > was feeling. > > Please comment and so forth on the talk page and hopefully this can be > sorted out once and for all. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace wrote:
> Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing
> together 1)
> the importance and 2) the quality ("good" vs "bad").
Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result
of the importance and the number of complaints to the council that a road needs
to be graded.
> But the alternative (which Frederik seems to be suggesting)
> would be
> to use primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential
> solely to
> address 1) the importance, and use surface + width + lanes
> + 4wd_only,
> etc, for 2) the quality.
I don't care how things are dealt with but the emails in the last day or 2 have
gone no where in addressing the issue, just trying to get each other to
understand how someone came to that point and their view of unclassified is the
only one that matters.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:49 PM, John Smith wrote:
> --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or
>> highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if
>> they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a
>> secondary road must be sealed! You can always add a surface
>> tag to describe details.
>
> I've marked at least one unsealed road as tertiary and there is roads less
> maintained/used that intersect and it makes no sense to mark most roads as
> tertiary or higher they just aren't that important.
>
> Also it doesn't make sense to make them as residential, as the road is
> usually isn't as good as residential roads, but not as bad as tracks.
Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing together 1)
the importance and 2) the quality ("good" vs "bad").
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But the alternative (which Frederik seems to be suggesting) would be
to use primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential solely to
address 1) the importance, and use surface + width + lanes + 4wd_only,
etc, for 2) the quality.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm wrote: > This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) > where the majority of people use unclassified for a road > roughly equal to residential but without people living > there. I don't know about the talk-de list, just what I've seen on this list, if it mostly isn't used that way unclassified should be defined better. > I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or > highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if > they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a > secondary road must be sealed! You can always add a surface > tag to describe details. I've marked at least one unsealed road as tertiary and there is roads less maintained/used that intersect and it makes no sense to mark most roads as tertiary or higher they just aren't that important. Also it doesn't make sense to make them as residential, as the road is usually isn't as good as residential roads, but not as bad as tracks. http://osm.org/go/uZ4m4qa6- Both roads on that map link are unsealed, however one is less used/less traffic/less maintained than the tertiary road. The tertiary road is used a lot as it can save 50km from going via a sealed road so it is of some importance. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Hi, John Smith wrote: > I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's > meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic > than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. This is not how it is generally used over here (Germany) where the majority of people use unclassified for a road roughly equal to residential but without people living there. Mind you, only recently someone has suggested on talk-de to do the same as you say, namely define unclassified as something "bigger than residential but smaller than tertiary". > I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for > non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally > lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are > sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how > zealous the grader driver was feeling. I would not hesitate to use highway=residential or highway=unclassified for these (or even tertiary and up if they are important to traffic). In fact, nobody says that a secondary road must be sealed! You can always add a surface tag to describe details. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Elena of Valhalla wrote: > where would this differ from an highway=track? A track is lower grade, at least here. rural road: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/330763485_4f976dba02.jpg track: http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/200281101-001.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=BEE8F6E6581A110684979C26C9F730851F6F6178A68B340C There may be no similarity in Europe, I have no idea never been, but there is a distinct difference between a track and a rural road. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Gustav Foseid wrote: > I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but > to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has > higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough > to be considered tertiary. Someone already tried that. It didn't even progress to voting. > Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, > that is a road equal to a residential road, but outside > residential areas. By all means, but the current situation is this, Germans and others are using it in one respect and Australians in a completely different respect. The whole point in my attempt at trying to do something was to stop all the pointless emails saying the same thing in 10 different ways. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Shaun McDonald wrote: > You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by > whether there are other things around in the area. That's > the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also > do some preprocessing if you need to. That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 completely different purposes and that could mean they need to be rendered differently. Also not all towns are mapped out any where near usable levels in Australia so this wouldn't really be appropriate until such times as they are mapped out. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* > areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than > residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they > generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was > feeling. where would this differ from an highway=track? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On 5 Aug 2009, at 06:40, John Smith wrote: > > Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was > a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have > gone no where yet the same problem still exists. > > I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify > it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of > traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. > > I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non- > urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally > lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are > sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how > zealous the grader driver was feeling. > > Please comment and so forth on the talk page and hopefully this can > be sorted out once and for all. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural > > You can determine whether an unclassified road is rural by whether there are other things around in the area. That's the whole point of Geo extensions in databases. you can also do some preprocessing if you need to. Shaun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's > meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than > residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. Then I propose to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential areas. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.
Currently highway=unclassified is too ambiguous, and while there was a proposal to replace this with highway=minor this seems to have gone no where yet the same problem still exists. I'm proposing not to replace highway=unclassified but to clarify it's meaning to be one thing, that is it has higher volumes of traffic than residential, but not enough to be considered tertiary. I'm also proposing to introduce a new highway classification for non-urban* areas. That is highway=rural would be for roads generally lesser than residential, generally unsealed but some of them are sealed and they generally only have a single lane depending how zealous the grader driver was feeling. Please comment and so forth on the talk page and hopefully this can be sorted out once and for all. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
