subject:"\[OSM\-talk\] Highway=trunk \: harmonization between countries \?"



sent from a phone

> On 24. Feb 2018, at 13:02, Lester Caine  wrote:
> 
> Since the classification initiated from the UK, that is still the base and a 
> motorway has restrictions that do not apply to a trunk route such as 'no 
> learners'.


what are “learners”? I don’t think we are required to map the whole world 
according to the UK jurisdiction.


cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?



sent from a phone

> On 24. Feb 2018, at 11:16, 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.


add Italy to this list, although motorroad is somehow orthogonal to trunk, in 
Germany and Italy at least.

Cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

> On 24. Feb 2018, at 03:47, Fernando Trebien  
> wrote:
> 
> None of the
> commercial alternatives to OSM have such artifacts.

can you please point to some examples? Are you sure about the other maps? They 
often don’t show many different road classes on first sight (but they have them 
and you can see it as you zoom in and out that there must be more properties or 
classes than you can distinguish by color or width) 

Cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

On 24. Feb 2018, at 03:47, Fernando Trebien  wrote:

>> drawn as a trunk road hints at all
>> these changes.
> 
> 
> You could also map it with lanes=4+foot=no+bicycle=no+agricultural=no
> and let the renderer decide whether these things are worthy of special
> representation or not.

there’s more to it, e.g. absence of traffic lights or level crossings (i.e. 
only ramps), separate carriageways, etc.
You can’t see the absence of traffic lights reliably in OSM, for example, and I 
imagine checking automatically for the type of crossings is also rather 
complex, just to be able to draw the road.

cheers,
Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

> On 23. Feb 2018, at 19:31, Fernando Trebien  
> wrote:
> 
> Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
> fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
> artifact of local definitions

it is because motorroads are defined legally (signs) and trunks typically 
according to physical status (e.g. motorway like), and in reality the networks 
often aren’t complete, which is reflected correctly on the map (in general) by 
showing those “gaps”

cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

> On 23. Feb 2018, at 19:29, djakk djakk  wrote:
> 
> Don’t worry, when the official system is good, lik in Czechia, it matches 
> Fernando’s suggestion :)

usually you’ll find several “classes” for roads by the public administration, 
according to the purpose/point of view, at least in Germany and Italy that’s 
the case. There can be classes according to the importance of connection, 
frequency of use, and maybe correlated with this size (number and width of 
lanes) and typology, setting, intensity of maintenance, etc. (some of these 
classes might only be known to the engineers who design the road / network, or 
organize the maintenance).
The only “class” you can often easily see is about _who_ does the maintenance 
(e.g. national/regional/municipality/etc), which is a property we do map as 
operator. It can occur that there is a strong relationship between the 
hierarchy of the operators and the importance of the road, but it is generally 
unlikely that there aren’t any exceptions at all (e.g. because the public 
administration is usually slow and it will take some time for them to adopt to 
changed conditions)

Cheers, 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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=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
> 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
>

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Fernando Trebien

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 
> 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 
 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Fernando Trebien

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Matej Lieskovský
 wrote:
> 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. :)

Unpaved trunk roads are not so unexpected [1][2].

place=* is defined differently in many countries to compensate for
differences in population density. That would solve the problems you
just mentioned. For example, in Russia [3], they define it this way:
- place=city: settlement of 100k people, or provincial capital with 40k people
- place=town: urban settlement of 5k people, rural settlement of 8k
people, or municipal district of 2k (if urban) or 4k (if not urban)
people

I didn't find the definition for Iceland, but currently the capital is
mapped as place=city and all settlements with 1k people or more are
place=town. All of those settlements are connected by highway=primary,
which is the level that would connect them according to my proposal.
Even though the Ring Road is entirely mapped as a trunk, its structure
is not the same everywhere; it is even unpaved in some sections
[4][5], but the classification doesn't change as a result of those
changes in structure. And the local community could have voted to make
the Ring Road an explicit exception to the general rule. But it would
also be interesting to discuss what makes the Ring Road important,
perhaps the reasons would apply elsewhere. The most populous
settlement that is not connected by the Ring Road is Ísafjörður, with
3.7k inhabitants and the 13th most populous in Iceland. This may
indicate an interesting idea: the Ring Road may be important because
it connects the majority of people in the country [6], regardless of
whether these people are concentrated in few large settlements or
spread over a vast area. How about Czechia? Looking at the population
distribution [7], the map that I generated seems to closely follow
population distribution (probably a result of planning), and I could
say that it makes sense to add other regional capitals to the same set
of cities (such as Karlovy Vary and Zlín).

mapy.cz uses OSM data, so I believe it does not count in this
discussion as an alternative approach to highway classification.

[1] https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk
[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/RU:Key:place
[4] 
https://www.google.com.br/maps/@64.7966139,-14.5148196,3a,75y,96.06h,87.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8fD89Ax72Y9lqw9RkXcyUg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_1_(Iceland)
[6] http://i.imgur.com/uFFiPsz.png
[7] 
https://www.mapmania.org/map/64667/czech_republic_czechia_population_density_2007

> 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 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.
>>>

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Lester Caine


On 24/02/18 09:30, 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 ?
Since the classification initiated from the UK, that is still the base 
and a motorway has restrictions that do not apply to a trunk route such 
as 'no learners'. In addition they were maintained 'nationally' while 
primary roads are a local responsibility. That was been muddied much as 
the idea that trunk routes are faster. For the UK the road structure is 
well defined and it would be nice to get back a rendering with the 
proper colours ( and a selection for that on OSMAND ) ...


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 ?)
Since there are no distinctions in many countries there is no need to 
include truck if there are no such roads in a country, and perhaps for 
'world wide' trunk gets rendered the same as motorway or primary? Only 
local rendering actually benefits from the distinction? Do any countries 
not have motorways at all? Certainly the current default rendering is 
useless for many of us anyway so we have to ue an alternate anyway ...


--
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Elena ``of Valhalla''

On 2018-02-24 at 11:16:22 +0100, 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.

and Italy too


-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Matej Lieskovský

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.

On 24 February 2018 at 11:08, Matej Lieskovský 
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 <
>> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Matej Lieskovský

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 <
> 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

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 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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-24 Thread Matej Lieskovský

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 ?

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 ?

2018-02-23 Thread JB


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Matej Lieskovský
 wrote:
> Ok, look here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.3124/13.8720
> The highway=trunk section is a bypass built to motorway specification. It is
> not even a motorroad, because it is so short, but the change in the
> character of the road is immense - it goes from 2 lanes to 2+2 lanes with a
> median, gets wider borders, no pedestrians, cyclists or agricultural
> vehicles allowed... The fact that it is drawn as a trunk road hints at all
> these changes.

You could also map it with lanes=4+foot=no+bicycle=no+agricultural=no
and let the renderer decide whether these things are worthy of special
representation or not.

As a map user, I'm left with a bad impression of a map with such
discontinuities, it looks messy and unprofessional. None of the
commercial alternatives to OSM have such artifacts. You may also look
for other maps of Czechia on Google Images and most won't show
artifacts like that either. Also look at the classification of
England, Australia and Russia in OSM and you won't find any similar
artifacts. I doubt their roads never change structure over long
distances.

> On 23 February 2018 at 23:18, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>>
>> Wouldn't the estimate change often? We usually don't like that in OSM. [1]
>>
>> [1]
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Matej Lieskovský
>>  wrote:
>> > A "traffic" tag sounds like a good idea, but I'd have two suggestions:
>> > 1) Can we find a better name?
>> > 2) Estimates are better than words. I can imagine what 5000 cars per day
>> > look like, but what is considered heavy traffic in (for example) Brazil?
>> >
>> > I'm all for letting highway tag only worry about high-level stuff
>> > (footway,
>> > cycleway, road, path...)  and have a separate class tag for official
>> > classification where needed.
>> >
>> > I've created this page:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes
>> > Feel free to add your region!
>> >
>> > PS: +1 to Michael's point about not changing classifications in
>> > countries
>> > with an official system.
>> >
>> > On 23 February 2018 at 23:06, Michael Andersen  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On fredag den 23. februar 2018 15.31.37 CET Fernando Trebien wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
>> >> > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
>> >> > artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
>> >>
>> >> The "fragments" of trunks you see in Denmark are intentional and
>> >> desirable. We
>> >> follow the official classifications. We will not be happy to see you
>> >> change them.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> talk mailing list
>> >> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > talk mailing list
>> > talk@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Trebien
>> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>>
>> "Nullius in verba."
>
>



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

The change is usually on the order of single digit percent per year, making
even a decade old estimate much more representative than "heavy".
Seriously, "traffic=trunk" obviously means nothing if we cannot agree on
what "highway=trunk" means.


Ok, look here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/50.3124/13.8720
The highway=trunk section is a bypass built to motorway specification. It
is not even a motorroad, because it is so short, but the change in the
character of the road is immense - it goes from 2 lanes to 2+2 lanes with a
median, gets wider borders, no pedestrians, cyclists or agricultural
vehicles allowed... The fact that it is drawn as a trunk road hints at all
these changes.

On 23 February 2018 at 23:18, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> Wouldn't the estimate change often? We usually don't like that in OSM. [1]
>
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.
> 27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Matej Lieskovský
>  wrote:
> > A "traffic" tag sounds like a good idea, but I'd have two suggestions:
> > 1) Can we find a better name?
> > 2) Estimates are better than words. I can imagine what 5000 cars per day
> > look like, but what is considered heavy traffic in (for example) Brazil?
> >
> > I'm all for letting highway tag only worry about high-level stuff
> (footway,
> > cycleway, road, path...)  and have a separate class tag for official
> > classification where needed.
> >
> > I've created this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.
> org/wiki/Highway_classes
> > Feel free to add your region!
> >
> > PS: +1 to Michael's point about not changing classifications in countries
> > with an official system.
> >
> > On 23 February 2018 at 23:06, Michael Andersen  wrote:
> >>
> >> On fredag den 23. februar 2018 15.31.37 CET Fernando Trebien wrote:
> >>
> >> > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
> >> > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
> >> > artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
> >>
> >> The "fragments" of trunks you see in Denmark are intentional and
> >> desirable. We
> >> follow the official classifications. We will not be happy to see you
> >> change them.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> talk mailing list
> >> talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > talk mailing list
> > talk@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "Nullius in verba."
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Wouldn't the estimate change often? We usually don't like that in OSM. [1]

[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:11 PM, Matej Lieskovský
 wrote:
> A "traffic" tag sounds like a good idea, but I'd have two suggestions:
> 1) Can we find a better name?
> 2) Estimates are better than words. I can imagine what 5000 cars per day
> look like, but what is considered heavy traffic in (for example) Brazil?
>
> I'm all for letting highway tag only worry about high-level stuff (footway,
> cycleway, road, path...)  and have a separate class tag for official
> classification where needed.
>
> I've created this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes
> Feel free to add your region!
>
> PS: +1 to Michael's point about not changing classifications in countries
> with an official system.
>
> On 23 February 2018 at 23:06, Michael Andersen  wrote:
>>
>> On fredag den 23. februar 2018 15.31.37 CET Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>
>> > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
>> > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
>> > artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
>>
>> The "fragments" of trunks you see in Denmark are intentional and
>> desirable. We
>> follow the official classifications. We will not be happy to see you
>> change them.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

A "traffic" tag sounds like a good idea, but I'd have two suggestions:
1) Can we find a better name?
2) Estimates are better than words. I can imagine what 5000 cars per day
look like, but what is considered heavy traffic in (for example) Brazil?

I'm all for letting highway tag only worry about high-level stuff (footway,
cycleway, road, path...)  and have a separate class tag for official
classification where needed.

I've created this page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_classes
Feel free to add your region!

PS: +1 to Michael's point about not changing classifications in countries
with an official system.

On 23 February 2018 at 23:06, Michael Andersen  wrote:

> On fredag den 23. februar 2018 15.31.37 CET Fernando Trebien wrote:
>
> > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
> > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
> > artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
>
> The "fragments" of trunks you see in Denmark are intentional and
> desirable. We
> follow the official classifications. We will not be happy to see you
> change them.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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 ?

I don't intend to.

But I still wonder why they are desirable.

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Michael Andersen  wrote:
> On fredag den 23. februar 2018 15.31.37 CET Fernando Trebien wrote:
>
>> Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
>> fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
>> artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
>
> The "fragments" of trunks you see in Denmark are intentional and desirable. We
> follow the official classifications. We will not be happy to see you change 
> them.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-23 Thread Michael Andersen

On fredag den 23. februar 2018 15.31.37 CET Fernando Trebien wrote:

> Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
> fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
> artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?

The "fragments" of trunks you see in Denmark are intentional and desirable. We 
follow the official classifications. We will not be happy to see you change 
them.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 5:25 PM, Mark Wagner  wrote:
> Which one is the "best"?  If it's the fast route, there's no issue:
> both roads are already "highway=motorway".

I think the fastest route is almost always what most people would
consider the best. The exception (probably rare/non-existent in the
US) would be when the fastest route has infrastructure problems - say,
it is a dirt road - while there are nearby routes with fewer problems
(say a paved road that takes a little extra time because it is
significantly longer).

That being an exception, the local community can the discuss the
exception (in the forum, so that it can be linked to from the map) and
vote against making it the main route.

> 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.

I propose that place=* implies importance. Fargo has 105k inhabitants
(place=city), Rapid City has 67k inhabitants (place=town). One highway
class would connect cities (city-city), a lower class would connect
towns and above (town-town, town-city), so the class of the ways
making up the route between those places would be of the second class.
If cities are connected by trunk and towns by primary, then the route
between them would be primary.

Now, which is the best route? Google insists on going through
McIntosh, whereas Here.com and Waze prefer going through Sioux Falls
or Dickinson depending on which direction you're going (mostly because
the roads in the area are nearly a grid, which is a characteristic of
the US that is not typical of most countries - that's worthy of some
discussion). Nonetheless, there are few options to choose from. Google
is the dissonant view, so maybe it should be initially ignored. The
route through Sioux Falls is part of other routes between pairs of
towns (say Sioux City - Grand Forks), so it must be a town-town route
for at least that other reason. The remaining question then is whether
the route Dickinson - Rapid City should be a town-town route.
Dickinson has 17k inhabitants, so it is a town, so that route should
be a town-town route. Which one is the main route between Fargo and
Rapid City is then not relevant because both options are town-town
routes for other reasons. If the situation did not allow us to ignore
the problem, the next step would be to collect data (tracklogs), or
publicly agree that both routes should be considered important because
they're too similar (one possible improvement for the method).

It should be noted that the route between Sioux Falls and Fargo would
end up being classified as a city-city route because it is part of the
main route between Kansas City (place=city, 459k people) and Winnipeg
(place=city, 705k people).

What if going through McIntosh is really the main route, or if all
three routers are wrong? In that case, the initial analysis would be
incorrect and the community would need to discuss that particular case
and document it. It is possible that routers in the OSM ecosystem
(OSRM, GraphHopper) can be used as long as relevant properties
(maxspeed=*, and in places with deficitary infrastructure, surface=*)
of route alternatives are mapped in OSM so that the routers can take
them into account.

What if, instead of the US, one is mapping in the UK, where place=* is
defined according to public ordinances. In that case, the method still
works, it just will judge a place's importance using another criterion
instead of population.

> Trunk, primary,
> or secondary?
>
> --
> Mark
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"Nullius in verba."

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

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 ?

2018-02-23 Thread Mark Wagner

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

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, 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 :
>>

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

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, 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]
> >>>

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

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 
> 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, 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
>>>

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

@djakk: I'd rather not rely on some global algorithm coming to the exact
same conclusion. Making the classification not match the algorithm
perfectly (because it forgot to look at number of lanes or traffic light
priorities or whatever) seems to me whole lot better than randomly getting
roads with classification that matches neither the signage, other maps nor
reality. We have a good local system - if it ain't broken, don't fix it.

@Fernando:
Borders are tricky - Czech roads are markedly worse than equivalent German
roads, so harmonisation by "quality" fails. Austria is far faster than us
at building better roads, so you can end up with a motorway ending at the
border because our government hasn't gotten around to actually building the
part on our side. If you convince the EU to agree on a definition of an
important city, you deserve a Nobel peace prize - so good luck classifying
by "importance".
Trunks are (at least here in Prague) either the (incomplete) inner city
circuit, the main "radial" roads that usually connect the centre with
motorways, or other random sections that would be a motorway if they met
the standard. Knowing Czech roads, you can get a reasonable estimate for
what the road is like from class alone.
I'd guess that the fragments are a result of problems with coordinating
road construction. Between states its quite obvious, but even different
regions might have a problem to coordinate perfectly and motorways tend to
get built in pieces according to how well the planning for each of them
goes.

On 23 February 2018 at 20:01, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Fernando Trebien
>  wrote:
> > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
> > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
> > artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
>
> I should note that I don't see such artifacts in England, Australia,
> South Africa, Russia, Japan, among others.
>
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Matej Lieskovský
> >  wrote:
> >> 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 <
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com>
> >> 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, 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Fernando Trebien
 wrote:
> Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
> fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
> artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?

I should note that I don't see such artifacts in England, Australia,
South Africa, Russia, Japan, among others.

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Matej Lieskovský
>  wrote:
>> 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, 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 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

What do you think about changes of classification at country borders?
Can this be somehow reconciled?

Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many
fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an
artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?


On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Matej Lieskovský
 wrote:
> 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, 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 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

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 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

1) I'd have far fewer problems with "highway=primary" being replaced by
"highway=road" "road_class=primary" or something like that (making it
easier to say "we don't classify roads here").
2) I'm not going around telling Brazilians which Brazilian roads they're
allowed to tag as primary. I'd welcome if this was reciprocated.
3) Since when is "harmonisation" a code-word for "we don't have motorways
so neither should you"?

On 23 February 2018 at 18:56, Pierre Béland  wrote:

> If we talk of harmonization, we have to look outside of Europe and the
> major industrialized countries. The highway classsification based on
> infrastructures such as motorways and trunk roads is not adapted to the
> majority of the countries or regions.
>
> In countries or vast regions with no motorway, should we consider primary
> roads the same level as motorways? Or classify as trunk for the renderer?
>
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le vendredi 23 février 2018 11:16:45 HNE, djakk djakk <
> djakk.dj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> 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 <
> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-23 Thread Pierre Béland

If we talk of harmonization, we have to look outside of Europe and the major 
industrialized countries. The highway classsification based on infrastructures 
such as motorways and trunk roads is not adapted to the majority of the 
countries or regions. 
In countries or vast regions with no motorway, should we consider primary roads 
the same level as motorways? Or classify as trunk for the renderer?

 
Pierre 
 

Le vendredi 23 février 2018 11:16:45 HNE, djakk djakk 
 a écrit :  
 
 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  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,

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

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 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

+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, 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 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

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 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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-23 Thread Tim Couwelier

There's always an inherit 'gap' between 'what does government intend the
road for' and 'how does the road actually look'.
Terms such as 'primary' and 'secondary' roads have meaning in planning
context.
In Flanders we have the 'Ruimtelijk Structuurplan Vlaanderen' which
classifies which roads are 'hoofdwegen' and which are primary (divided in
classes I and II)
Each Province has a 'Provinciaal Ruimtelijk Structuurplan', which
clasfficies which roads are secondary. (divided in classes I, II and III)
Each city/town is also supposed to have a 'Gemeentelijk Mobiliteitsplan'
which states which classification 'local' roads get, divided in classes I,
II and II)

There's potential for a very close match:

E and A roads are 'hoofdwegen'  => Tag as 'motorway'
The primary roads (regardless of their 'collecting' or 'connecting'
subtyping)  => tag as primary
The secondary roads (also regardless of their subtyping) => tag as secondary
The local roads types I and II => tag as tertiary
The local roads types III (aka 'the rest') => multitude of tagging options.

With the current tagging system and how it's applied in Belgium, we go
somewhere in between, but it's fairly 'clean' as it stands.
We don't look at what the government says, we go by 'how it looks' and link
that to the road numbering system for the' gewestwegen'.
Key point to decide on is if we SHOULD bother with 'intent' rather then
'reality', as 'mapping what's on the ground' is a basic principle.


Relating back to the post Joost distributed:
I do agree with most of the points, although 'trunk' is the odd part out.
'trunk' we don't use as a hierarchical classification, but to point out
it's a strech with a certain setup, i.e. forbidden for cyclists and such.


To end I'll repeat the example I've given in the riot channel about the
subtle difference between 'intended' and 'assumed':
The R32 ringroad around Roeselare.
Given it's a 'ringroad' it's classified in OSM as 'primary' all around.
But from the 'planning context' viewpoint, only the last stretches towards
the E403 are 'primary', and the majority is only 'secondary'. While the
road goes around Roeselare, it's function is to get people from and towards
the E403 'in either direction'. Due to the E403 being present, it's never
the intention to use the R32 to go around the entire end, as the E403 helps
cover that function.

PS:
If you have a look at said area, you'll also notice a part of 'trunk'.
Rendering wise, it 'feels' like the classification is different, and in
reality it looks different, but its function isn't really different at all.
Along with the aforementioned nuance primary/secondary, it's a second
example on how you could interpret on the same road.


2018-02-22 21:45 GMT+01:00 joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> Not wanting to change current consensus in Belgium, but I wonder how close
> this would be to current mapping practice in Belgium, and if it would be a
> way of thinking that could help in some current edge cases.
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com>
> Date: 2018-02-15 19:14 GMT+01:00
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
> To: t...@openstreetmap.org
>
>
> 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:

[OSM-talk-be] Fwd: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-22 Thread joost schouppe

Hi,

Not wanting to change current consensus in Belgium, but I wonder how close
this would be to current mapping practice in Belgium, and if it would be a
way of thinking that could help in some current edge cases.

-- Forwarded message --
From: Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com>
Date: 2018-02-15 19:14 GMT+01:00
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?
To: t...@openstreetmap.org

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/

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-22 Thread djakk djakk

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]

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2018-02-15 Thread Fernando Trebien

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.org/viewtopic.php?pid=674296#p674296
[5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
[6] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Road_types
[7] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/UnitedKingdom/Roads#Road_types
[8] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Canada/Main_Page#Road_Types
[9] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Commons/Road_Types/India
[10]

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-27 Thread djakk djakk

>
> 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] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Yves

What an out of topic festival! Phone models, routers, rendering styles, what 
else? 
Yves ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Lester Caine

On 24/08/17 15:16, Andy Townsend wrote:
> No idea what router you're using, but a common-or-garden Garmin satnav
> using OSM data is pretty much bang on timing-wise for rural routing
> around here.
> 
>>   - and get my blue motorway, green trunk and red
>> primary road back :)
>>
> I don't think we're actually short of map tiles with those colours :) 
> The UK/IE ones that I create are like that, and many others are too -
> either styles not updated since 2014 or deliberately chosen to look that
> way.

OSMAND on a Samsung S6 phone :)
My old dedicated sat nav did a good job as well as handling hands free
calls on the N900 mobile. Modern options are going down hill fast and
can't even do the basics! Simple reception of a signal would be nice to
have once again ...

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Andy Townsend


On 24/08/2017 14:18, Lester Caine wrote:


The starting point is the raw data in OSM ... but when something does
not look right in using that data just where do you start? I know my own
problems are mainly how the data is used and if I had more time I would
look to adjust the assumptions to give a more realistic 'fastest' route
for UK rural areas


No idea what router you're using, but a common-or-garden Garmin satnav 
using OSM data is pretty much bang on timing-wise for rural routing 
around here.



  - and get my blue motorway, green trunk and red
primary road back :)

I don't think we're actually short of map tiles with those colours :)  
The UK/IE ones that I create are like that, and many others are too - 
either styles not updated since 2014 or deliberately chosen to look that 
way.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Lester Caine

On 24/08/17 13:15, Greg Troxel wrote:
> I might experiment with a few roads.  But people should not worry that
> I'll do anything large scale (more than 30 minutes in JOSM, the unit of
> editing :-) -- I agree this is complicated and not resolved.  I view it
> as an eventual step towards better routing.

The starting point is the raw data in OSM ... but when something does
not look right in using that data just where do you start? I know my own
problems are mainly how the data is used and if I had more time I would
look to adjust the assumptions to give a more realistic 'fastest' route
for UK rural areas - and get my blue motorway, green trunk and red
primary road back :)

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Greg Troxel

Richard  writes:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> 
>> john whelan  writes:
>> 
>
>> > As someone who lives in a city street with one school in the middle and one
>> > at either end posted at 40 km/h with an average traffic speed of 60 km/h
>> > and over 100 km/h from some high school kids driving to and from school I
>> > would prefer it if traffic stuck to the posted speed limits.  Cars running
>> > across front lawns to avoid collisions are not unknown.
>> 
>> That sounds crazy, but I would guess that it isn't the people actually
>> paying attention going 48 that are the real issue!  But in all
>> seriousness, that sounds like an actual problem, not an OSM
>> representation problem.
>
> it would become an OSM problem if someone decides to tag this road 
> with maxspeed:practical=60. A router may then decide to route you 
> to this route instead of some alternative that would be much faster 
> for people who decide to respect speed limits at schools.

That's a fair point.  But, I wonder how waze and apple maps handle this.
I suppose one could find the dividing point experimentally and infer it.

In the end, though, if a router is actually faster when driving with the
flow of trafic, I don't see it as OSM's place to make it not seem that
way, and the above case really seems to need the attention of the
authorities.

> In cities I believe that maxspeed:practical can be usefull foremost
> in situations where traffic flow is for whichever reason much slower 
> than could be expected for an average city road tagged identically.
> That is because on average other factors like traffic lights, left
> turns, yielding etc determine the travelling speed much more then
> driving speed. None of those OSM and OsmAnd is particularly good at..

Agreed, mostly, but lights should be modeled by routers and if they
aren't, it isn't good to bury it in something else.  But for things that
aren't inferrable from tags I agree.

> Also consider the effect of the majority and other statistical effects. 
> If in Montana or wherever it is common to drive 20-40 miles faster 
> than posted on most rural roads than the router will probably do correct 
> routing decissions on average even without maxspeed:practical. 

You have a really good point and I agree that it's complicated.  But at
least around me, people drive a little bit faster than posted in most
places, and a lot on some roads.  Basically the speed limits are
sometimes correct (85% rule) and sometimes very much under.

I think your point about errors between (whatever tag, including
maxspeed) and reality being an error is valid even now, but I agree we
need to not make things much worse.

So I'm seeing a systematic bias (in fastest time mode) to slower,
shorter routes.

I should get some actual data and compare reality to OSM more
systematically.

> Tagging some roads with maxspeed:practical would have only the 
> effect to distort routing decissions. You owwould have to tag the 
> large majority of roads with this tag to achieve a similar effect 
> like not having it on any of those roads.h

That's a fair point in theory.  It's a good question how many roads need
to be adjusted to have things make sense.  Around me, adjusting the
interstates and route 2 would help vastly.

Maybe we need a "maxspeed:speed_limit_ought_to_be".  Really I mean
"people drive like the speed limit is X, and that's ok".  I'm sort of
joking, but will ponder.

I might experiment with a few roads.  But people should not worry that
I'll do anything large scale (more than 30 minutes in JOSM, the unit of
editing :-) -- I agree this is complicated and not resolved.  I view it
as an eventual step towards better routing.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Andy Townsend


On 24/08/2017 11:49, Richard wrote:


it would become an OSM problem if someone decides to tag this road
with maxspeed:practical=60. A router may then decide to route you
to this route instead of some alternative that would be much faster
for people who decide to respect speed limits at schools.


If a router uses a higher maxspeed:practical in preference to a lower 
maxspeed log a bug with it :)



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Richard

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:09:25PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> john whelan  writes:
> 

> > As someone who lives in a city street with one school in the middle and one
> > at either end posted at 40 km/h with an average traffic speed of 60 km/h
> > and over 100 km/h from some high school kids driving to and from school I
> > would prefer it if traffic stuck to the posted speed limits.  Cars running
> > across front lawns to avoid collisions are not unknown.
> 
> That sounds crazy, but I would guess that it isn't the people actually
> paying attention going 48 that are the real issue!  But in all
> seriousness, that sounds like an actual problem, not an OSM
> representation problem.

it would become an OSM problem if someone decides to tag this road 
with maxspeed:practical=60. A router may then decide to route you 
to this route instead of some alternative that would be much faster 
for people who decide to respect speed limits at schools.

In cities I believe that maxspeed:practical can be usefull foremost
in situations where traffic flow is for whichever reason much slower 
than could be expected for an average city road tagged identically.
That is because on average other factors like traffic lights, left
turns, yielding etc determine the travelling speed much more then
driving speed. None of those OSM and OsmAnd is particularly good at..

Also consider the effect of the majority and other statistical effects. 
If in Montana or wherever it is common to drive 20-40 miles faster 
than posted on most rural roads than the router will probably do correct 
routing decissions on average even without maxspeed:practical. 
Tagging some roads with maxspeed:practical would have only the 
effect to distort routing decissions. You would have to tag the 
large majority of roads with this tag to achieve a similar effect 
like not having it on any of those roads.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-24 Thread Philip Barnes



On 24 August 2017 01:09:29 BST, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
>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.
>
The term trunk goes back long before OSM, they date back to The Trunk Roads Act 
1936.

On the ground trunk roads are denoted by green signs and are mostly A roads, 
but there are exceptions such as a B road linking the trunk A6 to the M6 near 
Shap. 

Other A roads have white signs. 

HTH Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-23 Thread 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 :-)

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-23 Thread djakk djakk

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 ?

2017-08-23 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

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 ?

2017-08-23 Thread djakk djakk

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 ?

2017-08-23 Thread Lester Caine

On 23/08/17 02:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> b) situations where the posted speed limit is off the actual context, so
> that nobody respects it and the police doesn't enforce it

It's not helped when some people in the UK seem to think the whole
country limit is 50MPH rather than just a few counties. Driving at 45MPH
in a queue of cars held up by one slow one down miles of 60PMH road that
are safe to do that speed on but no where safe to overtake makes
something of a mockery of even posted speed limits. Took an extra 15
minutes to get home yesterday ... on a main UK trunk road :(

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-23 Thread Lester Caine

On 23/08/17 00:52, Greg Troxel wrote:
> If I drag the start point NE just a bit it flips to the route you like.
> 
> I don't have enough Copious Spare Time, but I'd like to see a way for
> routers to export their estimates of time/distance per leg, and to match
> that up with GPX, and essentially find legs with bad estimates, so they
> can be looked at indvidually.  This is more complicated because there is
> intersection behavior, so I think it needs to have time for the middle
> leg out of 3, or something that I haven't figured out, but still, one
> should be able to ask "Did what the router said would happen happen".

Time being the same problem here ... and finding OSMAND working
differently every time I do jump into the car does not help :( I still
keep trying to set routes as I used to and have to try and remember what
the new sequences are ... I'm doing a lot less driving these days and
only to established sites so the time even to fix things like road
colours is not worth the effort.

The A46 is a 'nice' test case as the main route has many poorly designed
roundabouts and at some times of the day the whole Evesham area just
grinds to a halt. Stratford is just as bad and the new roads planned
will make things even worse rather than helping. We don't stand much
chance of designing a harmonized routing process when the planners can't
even fix the problems they create :(

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-23 Thread djakk djakk

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 ?

2017-08-23 Thread Marc Gemis

>
>> maxspeed:practical should take dense account or traffic jams into
>> account as good as possible. So far I am not aware of any router
>> evaluating time based conditional restrictions but those could be
>> used to take rush hours somewhat into account.
>
> Agreed.  Or even live traffic.  But I agree with the notion that
> maxspeed:practical should be a representative speed that's valid most of
> the time.
>

Rush hour is different from the rest of the day, Speed might even be
different in both directions during rush hour. So you'll need
forward/backward with times.
Weekends are different, Weekend during holiday season are different
from other weekends.
Snow / rain changes the practical speed.

I fear there are more exceptions than representative times.

>> (I don't know what Apple maps does, but I think they use speed estimates
> from other apple users and do not clamp them to speed limits.  At least
> it seems that way in that Apple computes routes that are in fact fast
> but would be slower if speed limits were observed.)

Anyone seen the presentation of MapBox and their work on Telemetry
during SOTM this year ?
Looks promising as an improvement to predict driving times.

That's also why Waze seems to be popular. Road blocks are passed along
users in real time.
People can change their route as soon as this info comes in. Some
users find that the official traffic information comes too late.

regards

m.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?



sent from a phone

> On 23. Aug 2017, at 01:20, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> maxspeed:practical should be a representative speed that's valid most of
> the time.
> 
>> maxspeed:practical should not have any values above the legal speed
>> limit.. and if it had routers should ignore such values anyway, at 
>> least thats what I would expect from navigation software.
>> Many years ago something like this was encouraged in the ancient 
>> proposal but it is no longer in the description.. if there is any 
>> remaining doubt I would explicitly state it in the wiki.
> 
> Show Quoted Content
>> maxspeed:practical should not have any values above the legal speed
>> limit.. and if it had routers should ignore such values anyway, at 
>> least thats what I would expect from navigation software.
>> Many years ago something like this was encouraged in the ancient 
>> proposal but it is no longer in the description.. if there is any 
>> remaining doubt I would explicitly state it in the wiki.
> 
> 
> This seems unreasonable.  Maybe where you are people follow speed limits
> (because they are enforced, or because speed limits are set by good
> engineering practice instead of arbitrarily)


yes, I see several situations where tagging additionally maxspeed:practical or 
typical would be interesting:

a) small/windy/unpaved roads without posted speed limits 
where the default speed limit is far from what you can reasonably and safely 
drive

b) situations where the posted speed limit is off the actual context, so that 
nobody respects it and the police doesn't enforce it

c) situations where there's a reason for a specific speed limit but still 
nobody respects it and the police doesn't enforce it.
Around here, on a big arterial road with 2+3+3+2 lanes (10), some months ago 
the city posted 30kph signs on all lanes and directions (before 50 but people 
went and still go 70-100 on the central lanes), presumably to postpone 
maintenance work without risking to being held responsible in case of an 
accident.


cheers,
Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

john whelan  writes:

>>A typical city road posted 30 mph might move at 35 mph,

I probably should not have said city, but maybe town.  Around me, things
are less crowded and the speeds I referenced are not irresponsible.

> As someone who lives in a city street with one school in the middle and one
> at either end posted at 40 km/h with an average traffic speed of 60 km/h
> and over 100 km/h from some high school kids driving to and from school I
> would prefer it if traffic stuck to the posted speed limits.  Cars running
> across front lawns to avoid collisions are not unknown.

That sounds crazy, but I would guess that it isn't the people actually
paying attention going 48 that are the real issue!  But in all
seriousness, that sounds like an actual problem, not an OSM
representation problem.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-22 Thread john whelan

>A typical city road posted 30 mph might move at 35 mph,

As someone who lives in a city street with one school in the middle and one
at either end posted at 40 km/h with an average traffic speed of 60 km/h
and over 100 km/h from some high school kids driving to and from school I
would prefer it if traffic stuck to the posted speed limits.  Cars running
across front lawns to avoid collisions are not unknown.

Cheerio John

On 22 Aug 2017 7:23 pm, "Greg Troxel"  wrote:

>
> Richard  writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:00:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> sent from a phone
> >>
> >> > On 22. Aug 2017, at 15:46, Richard  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > called differently, but this is it:
> >> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
> >>
> >>
> >> yes, but practical maxspeed depends a lot on your equipment and
> >> capabilities, and on other people driving in front of you, so this
> >> tag will probably not be very uniform around the globe. Also, some
> >> people are willing to risk a speeding ticket, others don't. With
> >> regard to the latter, the situation in Italy is particularly
> >> ridiculous: the authorities have to sign post speed controls ;-)
> >> i.e. speeding tickets are kind of rare.
>
> In most US states, there's a de facto limit higher than the signed limit
> where there is very little risk of a ticket.  I'm thinking that
> maxspeed:practical should be the 50th percentile of typical time actual
> speeds.
>
> > maxspeed:practical should take dense account or traffic jams into
> > account as good as possible. So far I am not aware of any router
> > evaluating time based conditional restrictions but those could be
> > used to take rush hours somewhat into account.
>
> Agreed.  Or even live traffic.  But I agree with the notion that
> maxspeed:practical should be a representative speed that's valid most of
> the time.
>
> > maxspeed:practical should not have any values above the legal speed
> > limit.. and if it had routers should ignore such values anyway, at
> > least thats what I would expect from navigation software.
> > Many years ago something like this was encouraged in the ancient
> > proposal but it is no longer in the description.. if there is any
> > remaining doubt I would explicitly state it in the wiki.
>
> This seems unreasonable.  Maybe where you are people follow speed limits
> (because they are enforced, or because speed limits are set by good
> engineering practice instead of arbitrarily).  In that case, though,
> maxspeed:practical will be essentially maxspeed anyway, and that's fine.
> But in Massachusetts, uncongested traffic in clear weather essentially
> always travels above the speed limit, and the delta varies by road type.
> A typical city road posted 30 mph might move at 35 mph, and an
> Interstate posted 65 mph might move at 80 mph.  But a particular road
> that's almost Interstate (and correctly tagged trunk!) that is
> inexplicably posted at 45 mph moves at 75 mph, because that's what all
> the drivers think is the safe speed.
>
> A router should be answering the question "If I take this route, what
> will happen" as accurately as possible, as a first step in choosing a
> route with a pleasing outcome.  Refusing to use a reasonable estimate of
> traffic flow because it's below an arbitrary, known not to be enforced
> limit, does users of the routing service a disservice.
>
> (I don't know what Apple maps does, but I think they use speed estimates
> from other apple users and do not clamp them to speed limits.  At least
> it seems that way in that Apple computes routes that are in fact fast
> but would be slower if speed limits were observed.)
>
> Computing a route based on what's known to happen is not the same thing
> as encouraging speeding -- it's more like admitting that it usually
> happens.  And in all cases the driver is deciding how to drive.
>
> So:
>
>   maxspeed:practical should be able to have higher values than maxspeed
>
>   routers should use those values, higher or not
>
> and if that's not ok, then we need
>
>   maxspeed:typical
>
> which is defined to be what usually happens, regardless of what anybody
> thinks about it.
>
> Greg
>
>
> ___
> 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 Caine  writes:

> http://map.project-osrm.org/?z=11=52.149501%2C-1.577225=52.048797%2C-1.856918=52.258912%2C-1.619625=en=0
>
> 43.4km 33min
>
> Dragged to normal route via Mickleton it becomes 32.3km 34min, but
> anybody who uses this section of the A46 will tell you that it's often
> stationary traffic even on the dual bits ... so the quoted times are
> simply wrong a lot of the time.
>
> To add to the fun Warwickshire has decided they will enforce a county
> wide 50MPH maximum overriding the national limit so some of the long
> straight sections we 'should' be slowing down while some sections of the
> A46 are 70, but the same 50 limit applies to other long stretches on the
> A46 as well ;)
>
> I have a smaller problem heading south to the M5 and again 'shortest'
> picks the quick route but then avoids the M5 as well :) Interesting ...
> checking OSRM is getting it right so I need to check OSMAND again on that.

If I drag the start point NE just a bit it flips to the route you like.

I don't have enough Copious Spare Time, but I'd like to see a way for
routers to export their estimates of time/distance per leg, and to match
that up with GPX, and essentially find legs with bad estimates, so they
can be looked at indvidually.  This is more complicated because there is
intersection behavior, so I think it needs to have time for the middle
leg out of 3, or something that I haven't figured out, but still, one
should be able to ask "Did what the router said would happen happen".

Dealing with traffic is much harder.  For that I lean to a separate
database pouplated with reports by time/date and some inference, but
that's hard.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Philip Barnes  writes:

> On 22 August 2017 14:46:33 BST, Richard  wrote:
>>On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:40:13AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>> 
>>> Two points:
>>> 
>>>   Speed limit does not describe the speeds that reasonably
>>responsible
>>>   real people actually drive on roads.  The UK/IE notion of 60 mph on
>>>   all roads out of village centers is one example.  Another is in the
>>US
>>>   where there are many roads signed 65 mph where traffic normally
>>moves
>>>   at 80 mph.  So, what I think OSM needs a few things:
>>> 
>>> - A) a "typical_speed" tag, to be used by routers instead of
>>>   speed_limit
>>
>>called differently, but this is it:
>>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
>>
> Isn"t that going to be rather subjective?

That's why I picked "typical" rather than "pracical" (not knowing about
:practical, until Richard pointed it out).

I don't see it as subjective.  You just measure the median speed of cars
that go by every our, and take the median of that, or something similar.
It's meant to represent what typically happens, absent terrible traffic
jams (which affect all the other roads).  And, if there's a value that's
meant to approximate the true, too hard-to-measure definition, and it's
close to correct, that's in many cases better than using maxspeed
(around me, anyway).  I don't really anticipate edit wars over this.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

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.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Richard  writes:

> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:00:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> sent from a phone
>> 
>> > On 22. Aug 2017, at 15:46, Richard  wrote:
>> > 
>> > called differently, but this is it:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
>> 
>> 
>> yes, but practical maxspeed depends a lot on your equipment and
>> capabilities, and on other people driving in front of you, so this
>> tag will probably not be very uniform around the globe. Also, some
>> people are willing to risk a speeding ticket, others don't. With
>> regard to the latter, the situation in Italy is particularly
>> ridiculous: the authorities have to sign post speed controls ;-)
>> i.e. speeding tickets are kind of rare.

In most US states, there's a de facto limit higher than the signed limit
where there is very little risk of a ticket.  I'm thinking that
maxspeed:practical should be the 50th percentile of typical time actual
speeds.

> maxspeed:practical should take dense account or traffic jams into 
> account as good as possible. So far I am not aware of any router
> evaluating time based conditional restrictions but those could be
> used to take rush hours somewhat into account.

Agreed.  Or even live traffic.  But I agree with the notion that
maxspeed:practical should be a representative speed that's valid most of
the time.

> maxspeed:practical should not have any values above the legal speed
> limit.. and if it had routers should ignore such values anyway, at 
> least thats what I would expect from navigation software.
> Many years ago something like this was encouraged in the ancient 
> proposal but it is no longer in the description.. if there is any 
> remaining doubt I would explicitly state it in the wiki.

This seems unreasonable.  Maybe where you are people follow speed limits
(because they are enforced, or because speed limits are set by good
engineering practice instead of arbitrarily).  In that case, though,
maxspeed:practical will be essentially maxspeed anyway, and that's fine.
But in Massachusetts, uncongested traffic in clear weather essentially
always travels above the speed limit, and the delta varies by road type.
A typical city road posted 30 mph might move at 35 mph, and an
Interstate posted 65 mph might move at 80 mph.  But a particular road
that's almost Interstate (and correctly tagged trunk!) that is
inexplicably posted at 45 mph moves at 75 mph, because that's what all
the drivers think is the safe speed.

A router should be answering the question "If I take this route, what
will happen" as accurately as possible, as a first step in choosing a
route with a pleasing outcome.  Refusing to use a reasonable estimate of
traffic flow because it's below an arbitrary, known not to be enforced
limit, does users of the routing service a disservice.

(I don't know what Apple maps does, but I think they use speed estimates
from other apple users and do not clamp them to speed limits.  At least
it seems that way in that Apple computes routes that are in fact fast
but would be slower if speed limits were observed.)

Computing a route based on what's known to happen is not the same thing
as encouraging speeding -- it's more like admitting that it usually
happens.  And in all cases the driver is deciding how to drive.

So:

  maxspeed:practical should be able to have higher values than maxspeed

  routers should use those values, higher or not

and if that's not ok, then we need

  maxspeed:typical

which is defined to be what usually happens, regardless of what anybody
thinks about it.

Greg

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:19:13PM +0100, Philip Barnes wrote:

> >called differently, but this is it:
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
> >
> Isn"t that going to be rather subjective?

the number will be subjective. It is for the situations that
can't be adequately mapped othwerwise.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 05:24:02PM +0100, Lester Caine wrote:
> On 22/08/17 17:19, Philip Barnes wrote:
> >> called differently, but this is it:
> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
> >>
> > Isn"t that going to be rather subjective?
> 
> And will depend on 'time of day' ;)

of course - and you can use condiotional descriptions to map this.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:00:07PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 22. Aug 2017, at 15:46, Richard  wrote:
> > 
> > called differently, but this is it:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
> 
> 
> yes, but practical maxspeed depends a lot on your equipment and capabilities, 
> and on other people driving in front of you, so this tag will probably not be 
> very uniform around the globe. Also, some people are willing to risk a 
> speeding ticket, others don't. With regard to the latter, the situation in 
> Italy is particularly ridiculous: the authorities have to sign post speed 
> controls ;-) i.e. speeding tickets are kind of rare.

maxspeed:practical should take dense account or traffic jams into 
account as good as possible. So far I am not aware of any router
evaluating time based conditional restrictions but those could be
used to take rush hours somewhat into account.

maxspeed:practical should not have any values above the legal speed
limit.. and if it had routers should ignore such values anyway, at 
least thats what I would expect from navigation software.
Many years ago something like this was encouraged in the ancient 
proposal but it is no longer in the description.. if there is any 
remaining doubt I would explicitly state it in the wiki.

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On 22/08/17 20:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Generally it might be interesting to add a preference to routing engines 
> ("I'll be going 20 more than allowed where possible")?
Actually that is a niggle with OSMAND ... it only allows a fixed over
speed amount before warning ... what it should be using is a percentage,
so 5% would be tidy and 10% pushing where a traffic camera would be
'within tolerance'. Since speedometers are only required to be 'within
10%' currently ... you get the idea ;)

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2017, at 15:46, Richard  wrote:
> 
> called differently, but this is it:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical

yes, but practical maxspeed depends a lot on your equipment and capabilities, 
and on other people driving in front of you, so this tag will probably not be 
very uniform around the globe. Also, some people are willing to risk a speeding 
ticket, others don't. With regard to the latter, the situation in Italy is 
particularly ridiculous: the authorities have to sign post speed controls ;-) 
i.e. speeding tickets are kind of rare.

cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2017, at 14:40, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> 
> Another is in the US
>  where there are many roads signed 65 mph where traffic normally moves
>  at 80 mph.

80mph are 129kph, so I guess these are motorways or bigger roads?
Maybe this should be fixed by the legislator rather than in osm? If everybody 
is ignoring a specific law and it doesn't harm others, maybe the law has to be 
updated? ;-)

Generally it might be interesting to add a preference to routing engines ("I'll 
be going 20 more than allowed where possible")?

cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

sent from a phone

> On 22. Aug 2017, at 13:29, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> I don't understand why junction penalties should be dependent on the road 
> classes, and not on physical characteristics. I guess this is just a 
> heuristic which can be useful if you don't have the full picture.
> 

often on junctions passing on the higher road will be advantageous compared to 
approaching via lower roads (which typically have to give way, or will have 
shorter green light, etc.). That's the classic situation which is probably the 
reason that higher rated roads are preferred by routing engines.

It is of course a generalization, and in other (probably much fewer) cases, the 
main road might have always green light but the other roads will get green 
light when a car is approaching (induction loops, etc.). When the junction is a 
roundabout the road class won't matter. It's really complex to get "the full 
picture" of all real world constellations that do exist, even more with 
technology interacting with traffic lights, ideally you would have to have real 
time information about other vehicles and about traffic light states in order 
to choose the current best solution (even better would be predicting the 
traffic for the time when you will be there, surely quite complex task). 

I don't say prioritizing bigger highway classes is the absolutely best thing to 
do, but it's probably for most cases a good solution and far less complicated 
to calculate.

cheers,
Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On 22/08/17 17:19, Philip Barnes wrote:
>> called differently, but this is it:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
>>
> Isn"t that going to be rather subjective?

And will depend on 'time of day' ;)

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-22 Thread Philip Barnes



On 22 August 2017 14:46:33 BST, Richard  wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:40:13AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> 
>> Two points:
>> 
>>   Speed limit does not describe the speeds that reasonably
>responsible
>>   real people actually drive on roads.  The UK/IE notion of 60 mph on
>>   all roads out of village centers is one example.  Another is in the
>US
>>   where there are many roads signed 65 mph where traffic normally
>moves
>>   at 80 mph.  So, what I think OSM needs a few things:
>> 
>> - A) a "typical_speed" tag, to be used by routers instead of
>>   speed_limit
>
>called differently, but this is it:
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical
>
Isn"t that going to be rather subjective?

Phil (trigpoint) 



-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On 22/08/17 12:29, Colin Smale wrote:
> I would like to take a closer look at your example route... Can you give
> start and end locations?

http://map.project-osrm.org/?z=11=52.149501%2C-1.577225=52.048797%2C-1.856918=52.258912%2C-1.619625=en=0

43.4km 33min

Dragged to normal route via Mickleton it becomes 32.3km 34min, but
anybody who uses this section of the A46 will tell you that it's often
stationary traffic even on the dual bits ... so the quoted times are
simply wrong a lot of the time.

To add to the fun Warwickshire has decided they will enforce a county
wide 50MPH maximum overriding the national limit so some of the long
straight sections we 'should' be slowing down while some sections of the
A46 are 70, but the same 50 limit applies to other long stretches on the
A46 as well ;)

I have a smaller problem heading south to the M5 and again 'shortest'
picks the quick route but then avoids the M5 as well :) Interesting ...
checking OSRM is getting it right so I need to check OSMAND again on that.

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:40:13AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 
> Two points:
> 
>   Speed limit does not describe the speeds that reasonably responsible
>   real people actually drive on roads.  The UK/IE notion of 60 mph on
>   all roads out of village centers is one example.  Another is in the US
>   where there are many roads signed 65 mph where traffic normally moves
>   at 80 mph.  So, what I think OSM needs a few things:
> 
> - A) a "typical_speed" tag, to be used by routers instead of
>   speed_limit

called differently, but this is it:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:practical

Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

Lester Caine  writes:

>> 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 !). 
>
> Single carriageway roads here are 60MPH out of town and 30MPH in town
> but I'm not sure OSMAND actually understands that anyway applying 20MPH
> limit to all secondary and tertiary roads? The routes I am talking about
> are tertiary roads with 40 and 50MPH speed limit sections ... I do add
> them in where I find them, but many were not showing in North Wales :(

I agree with Lester, basically.  In the US, a problem with OSMand is
applying the motorway speed limit to a motorway_link.  Technically
that's sort of true legally, but it leads to routes that get off and
back on again, which is not only crazy but wrong, because driving that
way takes longer.  People have asked to have foo_link be half the speed
of foo, and I don't know if that's happened.

Two points:

  Speed limit does not describe the speeds that reasonably responsible
  real people actually drive on roads.  The UK/IE notion of 60 mph on
  all roads out of village centers is one example.  Another is in the US
  where there are many roads signed 65 mph where traffic normally moves
  at 80 mph.  So, what I think OSM needs a few things:

- A) a "typical_speed" tag, to be used by routers instead of
  speed_limit

- B) a project-curated worldwide  machine-readable ruleset that maps
  tags (including classifications, lanes, speed limit, and anything
  else) and possibley some geometry rules (distance between
  intersections) to the value "typical speed" should have, in cases
  where it isn't explicitly there.

- C) perhaps a database of typical speeds, outside the map, that can be
  crowdsourced in some privacy-respecting way, that routers can use
  instead of A and B.

   Routing programs are often not quite right.  Routing is hard.  But I
   cannot agree with the notion that the way to fix routing is to change
   how we use highway tags and especially trunk.  Routers should be
   attempting to answer "if I took this route, how long would it take in
   both distance and time" as a prelude to finding a route with a
   minimal combined metric, and that's about many things and not really
   about classification. If a router really wants you to take a road
   solely because of classification, that seems like a bug.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-22 Thread Marc Gemis

Did you try with e.g. MapFactor Navigator, which has settings for your
preference of 8 road categories + maxspeed inside & outside towns ?
Just being curious.

regards

m

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Lester Caine  wrote:
> On 22/08/17 11:41, Colin Smale wrote:
>> I agree,  classification should be largely irrelevant to routing.
>> Routing needs timings from node to node, which are best derived from
>> bendiness, number of lanes, junctions etc and then capped to the legal
>> maximum. A four-lane secondary, primary, trunk or motorway will all have
>> the same effective speed in the absence of bends and junctions.
>
> The problem here is that most routing systems use the highway= tag as
> the initial key to defining the 'defaults' for a link and the delay
> elements added moving from one type of road to another. I am convinced
> there is a problem with the tagging of the B4632 which is preventing it
> from being seen as an alternative to the A46 10 mile detour but as yet
> I've not spotted anything wrong. Shortest routing will pick it up, but
> then avoids the M40/M6 for the next stage :( It's not just OSM routing
> that gives problems, other routing engines are showing similar detours
> around local 'shortcuts' ... so even within a single country
> harmonization is a problem ...
>
> --
> 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 ?

2017-08-22 Thread Colin Smale

The road classification suggests a default maxspeed, in the absence of
more explicit information. I don't understand why junction penalties
should be dependent on the road classes, and not on physical
characteristics. I guess this is just a heuristic which can be useful if
you don't have the full picture. 

I would like to take a closer look at your example route... Can you give
start and end locations?

--colin 

On 2017-08-22 13:13, Lester Caine wrote:

> On 22/08/17 11:41, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> I agree,  classification should be largely irrelevant to routing.
>> Routing needs timings from node to node, which are best derived from
>> bendiness, number of lanes, junctions etc and then capped to the legal
>> maximum. A four-lane secondary, primary, trunk or motorway will all have
>> the same effective speed in the absence of bends and junctions.
> 
> The problem here is that most routing systems use the highway= tag as
> the initial key to defining the 'defaults' for a link and the delay
> elements added moving from one type of road to another. I am convinced
> there is a problem with the tagging of the B4632 which is preventing it
> from being seen as an alternative to the A46 10 mile detour but as yet
> I've not spotted anything wrong. Shortest routing will pick it up, but
> then avoids the M40/M6 for the next stage :( It's not just OSM routing
> that gives problems, other routing engines are showing similar detours
> around local 'shortcuts' ... so even within a single country
> harmonization is a problem ...___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On 22/08/17 11:41, Colin Smale wrote:
> I agree,  classification should be largely irrelevant to routing.
> Routing needs timings from node to node, which are best derived from
> bendiness, number of lanes, junctions etc and then capped to the legal
> maximum. A four-lane secondary, primary, trunk or motorway will all have
> the same effective speed in the absence of bends and junctions.

The problem here is that most routing systems use the highway= tag as
the initial key to defining the 'defaults' for a link and the delay
elements added moving from one type of road to another. I am convinced
there is a problem with the tagging of the B4632 which is preventing it
from being seen as an alternative to the A46 10 mile detour but as yet
I've not spotted anything wrong. Shortest routing will pick it up, but
then avoids the M40/M6 for the next stage :( It's not just OSM routing
that gives problems, other routing engines are showing similar detours
around local 'shortcuts' ... so even within a single country
harmonization is a problem ...

-- 
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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

On 22/08/17 11:16, djakk djakk wrote:
> Lester, why the little "main road" was not tagged as a tertiary road ?

The 'minor' roads are 'both secondary and tertiary' ... one example used
to be the 'trunk' road A46 but is now 'secondary' B4632, so many of the
routers using OSM data use the 'new' A46 which results in a 10 mile
detour :( I was hitting the same problem in Wales! ... the main through
route A66 is just that and not designed for local journeys. Selecting
'shortest route' often hits the 'single track' roads one DOES want to
avoid ...

> 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 !). 

Single carriageway roads here are 60MPH out of town and 30MPH in town
but I'm not sure OSMAND actually understands that anyway applying 20MPH
limit to all secondary and tertiary roads? The routes I am talking about
are tertiary roads with 40 and 50MPH speed limit sections ... I do add
them in where I find them, but many were not showing in North Wales :(

But I see no way to harmonization world wide. Even for just 'trunk'. The
'rules' for a country or area need to cover the differences that apply
in that area? Just as the routing rules need to know France is Left Hand
and UK is Right ... with different default speed limits.

> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-22 Thread Colin Smale

I agree,  classification should be largely irrelevant to routing.
Routing needs timings from node to node, which are best derived from
bendiness, number of lanes, junctions etc and then capped to the legal
maximum. A four-lane secondary, primary, trunk or motorway will all have
the same effective speed in the absence of bends and junctions.

//colin 

On 2017-08-22 10:47, Lester Caine wrote:

> 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?___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

2017-08-22 Thread djakk djakk

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 ?

2017-08-22 Thread djakk djakk

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 ?

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 ?

sent from a phone

> On 19. Aug 2017, at 21:29, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> 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.

in Germany and Italy trunk is used for roads similar to motorways which aren't 
legally motorways though, e.g. with ramps and without grade level 
intersections, often dual carriage ways, but which might (exceptionally) permit 
pedestrians or bikes.

Roads which are restricted to specific vehicle classes (e.g. no pedestrians, no 
slow vehicles like bicycles or mopeds or tractors) are additionally tagged with 
motorroad=yes.

This differentiation has proven very versatile in Germany and Italy basically 
leaving no tagging gaps for road classification.

cheers,
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?