Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/6 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Sounds good to me. An improvement. Look forward to seeing the individual tag definitions cleaned up accordingly (eventually). that would probably be a fulltime-job ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by 'residential' or 'service' in between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally I'd prefer that motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. 'shopping' may have a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do not see any reason that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? The problem is the definition on the wiki is ambiguous enough that people took it to mean that it interconnects with residential streets, and at the same time they took residential streets to imply access=destination so they needed some what to distinguish and that's when the problem started. If they had marked the residential streets as access=destination instead, and used residential without the access restriction there wouldn't be the conversation we're having now. No you have totally lost me there ... I've not had time to read ALL the messages in this string, but routing software should address the time aspect of a route, and anything below 'secondary' should be treated as a slow route. As you say - stopping routing through an area has nothing to do with the highway tag ... This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads outside urban areas and on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving unclassified for roads such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may be questionable. Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in the same context? Unfortunately that's not how everyone sees it, it really depends on what you're used to as to how you take the meaning of the current wiki definition. But that is the reason for discussing tidying up the definition. I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a 'highway', 'cycleway' and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways that have cycle access would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking ways if appropriate? If a bike can legally go somewhere it should be tagged as such for the bike routing software to figure it all out :) That is what I said Tag a cycleway as a cycleway ;) Rather than having to check for 'bike=no' tags. -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical. well perhaps that was why the Australian Guidelines, written before I joined OSM, tagged highways both with their physical condition and an administrative condition, double using the highway ref tag to do. where ref=NH1, is Highway 1, national highway adminstratively and ref=NR1 is still Highway 1, but not a national highway. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote: Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, It must be capable of taking the fire truck. Often they can also take very large vehicles B-doubles and similar vehicles. Service to me means the little parallel side road which keeps the stopping traffic away from the moving traffic, or a laneway.. It could still take a big truck. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). However, motorway is physical, and many of the other highway tags are defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial sentence needs to allow for more variety than just importance. +1 In the Philippines, we tend to tag the highways via importance and highway=motorway as a physical variant of highway=trunk. Relying on administrative classifications (National, provincial, municipal roads) will not work at all. On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads and narrow country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than necessary). Perhaps the solution lies in qualifying unclassified roads with an abutters tag when it's used in towns. We generally use highway=unclassified for all other non-track roads that are not residential. So residential and unclassified are generally equal but residential are for strictly residential areas so highway=residential roads would have lesser importance with regard to routing. This still conforms to the use of highway=* as an importance indicator. Eugene ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.com: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). In the Philippines, we tend to tag the highways via importance and highway=motorway as a physical variant of highway=trunk. Relying on administrative classifications (National, provincial, municipal roads) will not work at all. OK, to start beeing concrete, and because I got the idea that tagging according to importance is widely supported in the different countries, I edited the page. The result is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Key%3Ahighwaydiff=316036oldid=315699 In the first place, I changed physical to importance. Then I deleted the passus about implications to reduce data, because it's IMHO not the OSM-way to assume other tags instead of setting them, just to reduce data. Also there have never been definitions of those implications (besides perhaps surface=paved for upper highways). I added a paragraph that it is useful to addionally describe physical attributes like lanes, surface and width. Maybe more could be added here. The advantages for tagging according to physical state have partly become advantages for importance ;-) I added the paragraph, that before was titled == Exceptions to physical attributes == also in advantages of importance ;-) so don't be shocked by seeing all red, it's partly due to the wiki that didn't understand that most parts are merely unchanged but just moved. Please comment, I see this as a proposal, and we can change it. Please don't forget, that this is the main definition. There are definitions for each highway-type that will deal with all the exceptions and particularities of the different types. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: OK, to start beeing concrete, and because I got the idea that tagging according to importance is widely supported in the different countries, I edited the page. The result is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Key%3Ahighwaydiff=316036oldid=315699 Sounds good to me. An improvement. Look forward to seeing the individual tag definitions cleaned up accordingly (eventually). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). However, motorway is physical, and many of the other highway tags are defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial sentence needs to allow for more variety than just importance. On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads and narrow country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than necessary). Perhaps the solution lies in qualifying unclassified roads with an abutters tag when it's used in towns. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). However, motorway is physical no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). If there are constructions on a motorway and the separation of the opposite lanes is removed and the lanes get narrow and there is a maxspeed of 40km/h it still remains a motorway, at least in Germany this is the case. On the other hand a street whichs entirely meets the physical requirements of a motorway (separated lanes, emergency lane, lots of lanes, slip roads etc.) will not be a motorway unless it is legally designated to be so (and signs are errected). and many of the other highway tags are defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial sentence needs to allow for more variety than just importance. Yes, I agree. That's why I suggested mainly by their importance. But I would encourage us to leave physical out. We will gain by a clear distinction between importance and physical tags (which we already have: lanes, width, surface, separated ways) and I would also leave out those classes that require legal designation and therefore remain unambiguous (motorway, living_street, pedestrian). There will be no confusion about what is a motorway, but there are constant debates about primaries, secondaries and tertiary. Also in town the physical state is of few help, as it depends highly on the size of the town what e.g. a primary looks like. Furthermore, the physical state will in most cases correlate to the importance. On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads but aren't they not just what you defined: non-residential urban roads? and narrow country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than necessary). actually I never faced a problem with this. Do you have an example? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:02, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). However, motorway is physical no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 David Lynch djly...@gmail.com: no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? Well I can't tell from personal knowledge, German WIkipedia says you got this: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:I-95.svgfiletimestamp=20070518055237 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On 08/04/2009 07:17 PM, David Lynch wrote: The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:I-95.svg -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't defined by importance. A motorway is the part of a trunk road that has grade-separated junctions, and is on a new alignment, or does by some other means keep slow traffic out of harm's way. My concern stands - beware putting a statement at the top of a wiki page that is only partly true. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:17 AM, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:02, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: I'd agree that it should be importance for trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the importance (usually based on the type of signs). Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). However, motorway is physical no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:31, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/5 David Lynch djly...@gmail.com: no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). The USA has no such sign, nor do Canada and Mexico (AFAIK.) Do we have no motorways? Well I can't tell from personal knowledge, German WIkipedia says you got this: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:I-95.svgfiletimestamp=20070518055237 That indicates that it's part of the Interstate system. Every highway on the Interstate system is a motorway-class (high-speed and grade-separated) road, but not every motorway-class road in the United States is an Interstate. There is no equivalent to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_330.svg to draw a clear line between highway=motorway and highway=something else. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't defined by importance. well, in nearly all cases the motorways will be the most important roads. Of course there are also other characteristics and a highly important footway will never become in no country a motorway (without at least slight modifications ;-) ). A motorway is the part of a trunk road that has grade-separated junctions, and is on a new alignment, or does by some other means keep slow traffic out of harm's way. Yes, I'd agree on grade-separated junctions and keeping slow traffic out, while I don't think that new alignment is necessary neither do I understand, what a trunk-road is (Wikipedia:en=A trunk road, trunk highway, or strategic road is a major road—usually connecting two or more cities, ports, airports, etc.—which is the recommended route for long-distance and freight traffic. so I'd say: importance). Though these criteria apply to some other roads as well, at least in Germany and Italy, that are not motorways but considered a lower class. My concern stands - beware putting a statement at the top of a wiki page that is only partly true. that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
My English was perhaps unclear. The discomfort is with using the same tag for two quite different road types (industrial estate roads and country lanes). Either would be fine on their own. The potential problem for renderers is that there's a lot less space to render things in urban areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed or suppressed), and rural areas (so they can be used to help fill up the space). Abutters seems to offer one way of indicating to the renderer that it's within the urban area without creating yet another highway tag. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:02 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads and narrow country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than necessary). actually I never faced a problem with this. Do you have an example? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 David Lynch djly...@gmail.com: That indicates that it's part of the Interstate system. Every highway on the Interstate system is a motorway-class (high-speed and grade-separated) road, but not every motorway-class road in the United States is an Interstate. There is no equivalent to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_330.svg to draw a clear line between highway=motorway and highway=something else. As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? wrong assumption. In california and oregon and maybe other states too there are some freeways which do allow bikes. usually in rural areas without alternative routes. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Motorways and trunk roads jointly form the most important tier in the UK. Most countries seem to follow a similar pattern - motorways feed into non-motorway trunk roads to jointly form the top tier. Richard On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/8/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't defined by importance. well, in nearly all cases the motorways will be the most important roads. Of course there are also other characteristics and a highly important footway will never become in no country a motorway (without at least slight modifications ;-) ). A motorway is the part of a trunk road that has grade-separated junctions, and is on a new alignment, or does by some other means keep slow traffic out of harm's way. Yes, I'd agree on grade-separated junctions and keeping slow traffic out, while I don't think that new alignment is necessary neither do I understand, what a trunk-road is (Wikipedia:en=A trunk road, trunk highway, or strategic road is a major road—usually connecting two or more cities, ports, airports, etc.—which is the recommended route for long-distance and freight traffic. so I'd say: importance). Though these criteria apply to some other roads as well, at least in Germany and Italy, that are not motorways but considered a lower class. My concern stands - beware putting a statement at the top of a wiki page that is only partly true. that's IMHO why I started this discussion: it surely isn't just physical. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com: As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? wrong assumption. In california and oregon and maybe other states too there are some freeways which do allow bikes. usually in rural areas without alternative routes. I already expected something like this ;-). Do you also have freeways with traffic lights or access not via ramps? Are you tagging them as motorways or trunks (or even primary?) on these parts where bicycles are allowed? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 20:13, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/5 David Lynch djly...@gmail.com: That indicates that it's part of the Interstate system. Every highway on the Interstate system is a motorway-class (high-speed and grade-separated) road, but not every motorway-class road in the United States is an Interstate. There is no equivalent to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_330.svg to draw a clear line between highway=motorway and highway=something else. As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? Freeway is the general term in American English for what OSM would tag highway=motorway (some people would also include toll=no; that was one of the senses of the free part of the name when they first opened.) Interstates are a subset of freeways. The majority of centrally-maintained roads are numbered, and the majority of unnumbered roads are locally maintained*. Interstates and U. S. Highways have numbers and routes set by the federal government; other centrally-maintained roads are numbered on a state-by-state basis and states may even have more than one numbering system (Texas has about four state-specific ones that I can think of off of the top of my head, and 360 is a major urban road in three of them.) It's pretty much anarchy, compared to Europe. Generally, I would say that bicycles aren't a good idea, even when they are allowed. The legal definition of a freeway varies from state to state as do the restrictions that are in place. * - Some rural counties use numbers instead of names, but a lot dropped the practice in the last 15 years or so when a new law came into effect about identifying locations for fire/medical/police response. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: The potential problem for renderers is that there's a lot less space to render things in urban areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed or suppressed), and rural areas (so they can be used to help fill up the space). Abutters seems to offer one way of indicating to the renderer that it's within the urban area without creating yet another highway tag. The problem with that is it would require abutters tags and/or be ambiguous as to what class of highway it is, I also don't think it's a very good idea using one class of highway for 2 very different purposes. Some people are using highway=unclassified to mean a wider than residential road which seems to contradict the wiki reference: No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. This means to me to mean lower than residential, but the opposite has been used and some take it as higher than residential. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
as far as I know freeway require that there are no intersections and access is via ramp. but this independent from bike access. Know one example where freeway ends just for a single access without ramp and starts again after ~ 100m yes usually these interruptions are tagged as trunk. US 101 in california is a good example. It changes from Primary or trunk to motorway many times. mainly the northern part is open for bikes. On Aug 4, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/5 Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com: As far as I have understood by reading English Wikipedia you have different classes (Freeway, Interstate, Numbered Highways) where at least Freeway and Interstate are motorways. Those seem to have unambiguous signs. May I suppose that I would not be allowed to ride my bike on any of these, even if the average speed on all lanes of the 405 in LA is 5 mph at rush hour? wrong assumption. In california and oregon and maybe other states too there are some freeways which do allow bikes. usually in rural areas without alternative routes. I already expected something like this ;-). Do you also have freeways with traffic lights or access not via ramps? Are you tagging them as motorways or trunks (or even primary?) on these parts where bicycles are allowed? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote: The potential problem for renderers is that there's a lot less space to render things in urban areas, so they benefit if lower-order roads are distinguishable between urban areas (so they can be narrowed or suppressed), and rural areas (so they can be used to help fill up the space). Abutters seems to offer one way of indicating to the renderer that it's within the urban area without creating yet another highway tag. The problem with that is it would require abutters tags and/or be ambiguous as to what class of highway it is, I also don't think it's a very good idea using one class of highway for 2 very different purposes. Some people are using highway=unclassified to mean a wider than residential road which seems to contradict the wiki reference: No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. This means to me to mean lower than residential, but the opposite has been used and some take it as higher than residential. highway tag identifies a linear feature that can be navigated along ... what seems to have been lost is the distinctions that are applied to train and water traffic, so while we have waterway and railway, we do not have 'footway' waterways have towpaths which are footways and so do some railways although those WOULD normally be marked with separate routes and so perhaps should towpaths. But the point I'm trying to make is that route which are essentially vehicle free are not easily identified currently. If these routes are stripped off from the 'highway' network, and route that are essentially vehicular are identified by 'highway', then we tidy up the definition of highway, 'cycleway' and 'bridleway' might complete this picture? We then come back to the relative 'levels' of highway tag, and these ARE fairly well formed for the major road classifications, motorway, trunk, primary and secondary form the major vehicle routing system, and I will not go into rant mode here about 20 mile per hour speed limits on primary roads because they are 'residential' - in that instance there is a missing bypass route of some sort ;) Roads within industrial areas or housing estates, may be 'short cuts' on the main 'interchange' map, but unless those routes are designated primary or secondary, the '20 mile per hour' speed should be considered to apply as these are essentially areas where the vehicular use is not the primary use, and children playing or vehicles being unloaded takes a higher priority? 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by 'residential' or 'service' in between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally I'd prefer that motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. 'shopping' may have a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do not see any reason that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads outside urban areas and on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving unclassified for roads such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may be questionable. Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in the same context? 'living_street' is a footway with limited vehicular access as is 'pedestrian' I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a 'highway', 'cycleway' and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways that have cycle access would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking ways if appropriate? -- 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// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: 'Urban' areas should on the whole be covered by 'residential' or 'service' in between the 4 main vehicle route tags. Although personally I'd prefer that motorway service roads were not grouped with 'industrial'. 'shopping' may have a place for filling in the gaps in these cases, but I do not see any reason that 'unclassified' would be used within an urban area? The problem is the definition on the wiki is ambiguous enough that people took it to mean that it interconnects with residential streets, and at the same time they took residential streets to imply access=destination so they needed some what to distinguish and that's when the problem started. If they had marked the residential streets as access=destination instead, and used residential without the access restriction there wouldn't be the conversation we're having now. This leaves tertiary and unclassified for those roads outside urban areas and on the whole tertiary probably applies better leaving unclassified for roads such as farm tracks or routes where the vehicular usage may be questionable. Certainly an 'unclassified' highway should not be capable of handling a large lorry so routes for access to farms should be tagged 'service' perhaps where such access is practical, and 'track' needs to be tidied in the same context? Unfortunately that's not how everyone sees it, it really depends on what you're used to as to how you take the meaning of the current wiki definition. I think I could well make a case for a 'way' having a 'highway', 'cycleway' and 'footway' tag if appropriate, so American motorways that have cycle access would simply add a 'cycleway' tag with separate linking ways if appropriate? If a bike can legally go somewhere it should be tagged as such for the bike routing software to figure it all out :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/1 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org: On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well I disagree. IMHO we should tag what is 'on the ground', not invent things or try to tag what's in people's minds. If a government body gives a road it maintains some importance (or class/type) we should tag it accordingly. yes. We should tag the importance it receives. But that's what this is about. Class and type put equally aside are not helpful in this discussion. Classes there are also in law more than just administrative classes. Maybe you can read German, so have a look at this: I don't see what you're saying here. Do you have a complete text to replace the intro text on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway ? Maybe the following helps a bit (derived from the current text): There are at least 4 attributes of a road that can be used to determine highway types: 1. the physical attributes: a. number and surface quality of the regular lanes b. signs for access, right of way (yield), road type, etc. c. whether there is a separate cycleway along the road d. presence (and programming) of traffic lights e. whether buildings are at the road (addresses) f. whether buildings are near the road (within X m) g. how access points/crossings/etc. are built etc. 2. intended use/function Roads usually must be built and maintained. The people who arrange this construction work need to have some idea of the function of each road. 3. actual use Must be measured, usually written as number of vehicles/day, differentiated by: a. vehicle type b. local/regional/other traffic 4. who funds road maintenance IMHO we are already tagging intended use (2.) often by looking at the pysicial attributes (1.) so it would be nice to have this described on the wiki. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenkategorie This seems to be based on the same 3 categories as in The Netherlands, and then further subcategorized. The 'Verbindungsfunktionsstufen' might be useful for tagging. Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Christiaan Welvaartc...@daneel.dyndns.org wrote: Why would who maintains a road directly determine its administrative classification? If a municipality decides that some road is a motorway, we better tag it as such. In The Netherlands some provinces maintain short stretches of motorway, for example, while most motorways are maintained by the national government. The maintainer of a road can be tagged independently. So is it really a big change for Germany and Italy to define the highway tag as the administrative classification of the road? As Martin already said, yes, it would be a big change, and it would become quite meaningless (I speak about Italy, don't know about Germany) At least in Italy, the law states that the importance of a road defines its administrative status, and this in turn decided who is going to maintain it: if it was like this it would be great for OSM. The problem is that a few years ago the central government road agency started to try and get rid of some expenses, and lots of statali (nationwide importance) got demoted to regionali and provinciali (lower and more local importance) so that somebody else had to pay for them, even when they still were the only road connecting two cities. Conversely, since the national agency is quite slow and lots of old statali pass through densely built areas, some local government decided to build better variants; they have grown to be more important than the old statali, but they're still categorized as provinciali because of who has build them. Motorways and half-motorways (extraurbane principali according to the italian law, superstrade for anyone else) are categorized by the italian law according to physical features instead, regardless of importance and maintainer, so the above does not apply. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' homepage: http://www.trueelena.org email: elena.valha...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/3 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org: I don't see what you're saying here. Do you have a complete text to replace the intro text on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway ? NO, of course not. All I wanted to do is change the first phrase: The highway tag is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the physical structure of the highway. into this one: The highway tag is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag and describes the importance of the highway in the road system. This would also imply some further modifications in the general definition of highway, where there was put emphasis in the physical state, while all particular tags (motorway, primary, secondary, etc.) could remain the same for one simple reason: they already define themselves about importance and not physical state (have a look, they speak about Important roads that aren't motorways, generally linking larger towns, leading to/from a primary road from/to a primary road , generally linking smaller towns and villages, typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network, etc. more than about physical state (just tertiary and motorway, where motorway is actually defined by legislation (motorway-sign) and not by beeing something like 4 lanes and more). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/4 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Elena of Valhalla wrote: So is it really a big change for Germany and Italy to define the highway tag as the administrative classification of the road? As Martin already said, yes, it would be a big change, and it would become quite meaningless (I speak about Italy, don't know about Germany) At least in Italy, the law states that the importance of a road defines its administrative status, and this in turn decided who is going to maintain it: if it was like this it would be great for OSM. this makes a fascinating problem the organised germanic heirarchiacal system vs the romantic italianate system no, there is no versus, it is exactly the same issue in Germany and Italy, as Elena pointed out: we can't go by administrative classes, for similar reasons. To give you an example, look at the comunal road K 9652. User:Tirkon posted this illustrated example of how this comunal road changes along it's way from unclassified to trunk - and keeps it's administrative classification (Kreisstraße - traditionally a tertiary road) all the way (it's all the same road): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=DE:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#Beispiele i believe that i map what i see on the ground that's what we all do - for certain things. Others, you can't see and you must collect the information by different means. E.g. you don't see administrative borders - but we agree that we want to have them in OSM. Do you see importance on the ground? I'm not sure, but you see it in the context. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On 01/08/2009, at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Well, you can do this, but most routers will try not to use residential roads if there is another way. Maybe things are different over in Europe than here in Australia. My Garmin when using commercial maps and a friend's NavMan are both more than happy to take you down what we have been taggin as residential streets, if it will save you a few seconds time. The exception is roads marked as local traffic only, which I'd tag as access=destination. both of these are IMHO not valid for industrial areas, that's why your aussie-way might produce slightly worse routing results (don't know, just an idea). If we ignore the Australian tagging guidelines, what should we use for roads that are the same as residential ones but in an industrial area? According to the wiki, unclassified roads are wider than residential ones, and while roads in industrial areas are often wider than residential ones, that's not always the case. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote: If we ignore the Australian tagging guidelines, what should we use for roads that are the same as residential ones but in an industrial area? According to the wiki, unclassified roads are wider than residential ones, and while roads in industrial areas are often wider than residential ones, that's not always the case. The wiki talks about residential or unclassified roads inside a residential area: This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. Tagging roads inside industrial or commercial areas with highway=residential sounds really bad, sorry. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Pieren wrote: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote: If we ignore the Australian tagging guidelines, what should we use for roads that are the same as residential ones but in an industrial area? According to the wiki, unclassified roads are wider than residential ones, and while roads in industrial areas are often wider than residential ones, that's not always the case. The wiki talks about residential or unclassified roads inside a residential area: Which wiki page ? the last one or the earlier ones? This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. Tagging roads inside industrial or commercial areas with highway=residential sounds really bad, sorry. lots of things sound bad, but we need more than feel good answers to make good maps. So the question is: is there anything about a road inside an industrial or commercial area which would be important inside a renderer or a routing engine and is different to a residential road? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/1 James Stewart j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk: Classifying roads in central asia, it is easier, and makes more sense in my opinion to use the highway ref in the administrative sense. Some countries or regions have 5 or 6 main roads with are the national trunk system. In places they are almost reduced to tracks through the mountains, through which all traffic flows - it makes little sense to mark then as a track though- physical attribute tags can do this, and using dual carriage way technique when relevant. Many central asian roads have fallen into disrepair in the last 20 years, but nonetheless remain trunk roads. These roads are generally the object of investment to improvement, so so will remain the principal highways, but improved over time. so this is another example, that the main focus for the highway-class should be on importance, true? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/1 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org: On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: It seems to be an interpretation problem for the phrase 'administrave class' then because I clearly argued that who is the maintainer of the road should not directly influence the value of the highway tag. What I was trying to say is that I'd prefer to tag the importance that the road maintainer sets for a road. OK, still importance it is. This *class* can usually be derived from how it was built, the maximum speed on the road, etc., not from how many cars actually drive on it or even its position in the grid. Road maintainers also take other things into account like how many houses are near the road, but that's more or less another way of estimating how many cars actually drive on it how much pollution and noise will be generated by traffic on the road, etc. and that's also most dependant on how many cars actually drive on it (besides speed and partially surface) So in the context of Germany I say take 'Autobahn' and 'Kraftfahrstrasse' as a classes for the highway tag (not 'Bundesstrasse' and 'Landesstrasse'). These terms are defined in law, so it is not something OSM invented or a vague importance of the road. Bundesstraße is of course also defined in law: http://bundesrecht.juris.de/fstrg/BJNR009030953.html as is Landesstraße http://rlp.juris.de/rlp/gesamt/StrG_RP.htm and most probably also Kreisstraße and others (use google if you don't believe me). But we already agreed a long time ago in Germany not to use these administrative classification to derive the OSM highway-class for good reasons already reported here. The problem with 'importance' is that it is too vague and it is the task of the road maintainer to determine/define a road's function. Also, if there is a mismatch between a road's classification and its 'importance', we should tag the classification. what do you mean by classification? Administrative, physical or importance? There is clearly all the three of them, and of course I want to tag the administrative classification (inside ref-tag) but not as the parameter for the highway-class. I mean how the road maintainer designates the road. it is not the road maintainer to designate the road but the designation sets the road maintainer. That's the case at least in Germany and Italy (but most probably also in other countries). Well I disagree. IMHO we should tag what is 'on the ground', not invent things or try to tag what's in people's minds. If a government body gives a road it maintains some importance (or class/type) we should tag it accordingly. yes. We should tag the importance it receives. But that's what this is about. Class and type put equally aside are not helpful in this discussion. Classes there are also in law more than just administrative classes. Maybe you can read German, so have a look at this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenkategorie and this http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9Fenbaurichtlinien (the latter is a more detailed summary of laws and directives according to roads. Another example is Bicycle streets. These are designated by municipalities in .nl (and .de) but they do not have a uniform importance: for cars they are e.g. a living street but for bicycles they are part of an important and much used route. These roads are classified specially by the road maintainer, and this should be reflected in the highway= value. What is the conclusion according to your proposal? I was talking about the main definition for the highway tag. Please note, that also on the English page there is explicitly written, that administrative classes are NOT the way to derive the highway-class. Please have a look. This discussion is about substituting physical (actual state) to importance. To your case (bikeroads): for these special cases (also motorway) we still have the particular definition where the criteria would remain designation in these cases. Anyway how do you determine if something is a cycleway, from its importance and its position in the grid? That does not work while it would be nice to have a uniform definition for the highway key. no, see above. I think the distinction between the general definition and the special ones is to be kept. I can't really see a point here. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/2 Liz ed...@billiau.net: So the question is: is there anything about a road inside an industrial or commercial area which would be important inside a renderer or a routing engine and is different to a residential road? yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible (slow, dangerous and noisy for residents / playing kids), while I don't see this in industrial or commercial context. Furthermore industrial areas are built according to standards that allow easy use with trucks, while in residential areas you will more often have smaller streets and straighter curves, which will cause problems to big trucks. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible (slow, dangerous and noisy for residents / playing kids) Add for cars. It could be the opposite for cycling as it is writen here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway#On-Road_Cycling_.28Cycle_Friendly_Streets.29 Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/2 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible (slow, dangerous and noisy for residents / playing kids) Add for cars. It could be the opposite for cycling as it is writen here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycleway#On-Road_Cycling_.28Cycle_Friendly_Streets.29 Yes, thank you Pieren. For bikes it's the other way round. I put this topic on a separate thread, because it is not about the main-tag-definition for highway. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Lized...@billiau.net wrote: lots of things sound bad, but we need more than feel good answers to make good maps. So the question is: is there anything about a road inside an industrial or commercial area which would be important inside a renderer or a routing engine and is different to a residential road? This sounds like tagging for the renderer and/or tagging for the router. If it isn't a residential road, don't tag it as a residential road. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Furthermore industrial areas are built according to standards that allow easy use with trucks, while in residential areas you will more often have smaller streets and straighter curves, which will cause problems to big trucks. That does not apply in our country The roads are all built to the one standard. We don't have mediaeval cities, with narrow streets, overhanging upper stories and other problems like that. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 06:56, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/8/2 Liz ed...@billiau.net: So the question is: is there anything about a road inside an industrial or commercial area which would be important inside a renderer or a routing engine and is different to a residential road? yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible That's your opinion. If I'm in a car, I prefer residential areas to industrial ones. If I'm on foot or cycling, I prefer residential to any other class of road. Furthermore industrial areas are built according to standards that allow easy use with trucks, while in residential areas you will more often have smaller streets and straighter curves, which will cause problems to big trucks. In my part of the USA, the fire engine is the large vehicle of choice when designing roads, and it's about as big as un-manouverable as it gets. If your residential street isn't accessible to big trucks, people's houses burn down. The real issue here isn't trucks. It's that the prevailing standard of OSM is that unclassified is a higher level than residential, and that leaves no tag for places (including most everywhere I've been in the Americas, as well as, apparently, Australia) where roads in industrial areas not appreciably different from a residential street, but not abutted by houses. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: If the administrative class in your country coincides with the importance: fine. Nothing changes. Unfortunately this is neither in Italy nor in Germany the case: some roads have been downgraded / passed to a lower maintenance entity for administrative reasons (now somebody else pays and cares for the maintenance, what was before a nation / federal road has sometimes become a regional / Landstra??e). Others, like Kreisstra??en in Germany (comunal roads) have been upgraded and are now almost Autobahn-Standard. As result of this, it has been agreed not to corelate administrative status and highway-class. But there is a problem with tagging pure physical state as well: it depends on the context. In a rural area a secondary or primary street will be much smaller than in a highly dense urban area. This is why importance of the road seems most useful (be it for routers or to structure visually and according to significance on rendered maps). Why would who maintains a road directly determine its administrative classification? If a municipality decides that some road is a motorway, we better tag it as such. In The Netherlands some provinces maintain short stretches of motorway, for example, while most motorways are maintained by the national government. The maintainer of a road can be tagged independently. So is it really a big change for Germany and Italy to define the highway tag as the administrative classification of the road? The problem with 'importance' is that it is too vague and it is the task of the road maintainer to determine/define a road's function. Also, if there is a mismatch between a road's classification and its 'importance', we should tag the classification. The importance is derived from the topology of the road network, which is already in OSM. An example is a route through a town to a motorway access. The municipality this town belongs to considers this route inappropriate, while the municipality where the route starts considers it an appropriate route. The road inside the town is still tagged as secondary, while its maxspeed was already lowered to 30km/h. AFAIK its 'importance' has not changed, however, as no alternative route to this motorway access is available (there are several alternative access points to this an other motorways, though). So, do you think we should keep it as secondary which probably matches its importance (access to a motorway) or tag it as tertiary or even lower which matches its classification (only meant for traffic from and to the town)? Christiaan ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/1 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: areas, that's why your aussie-way might produce slightly worse routing results (don't know, just an idea). The navit routing engine prefers residential to tertiary in some cases... So not all poor routing is because we use unclassified for lower than residential. The navit routing engine also tried to get me to go the wrong way along a correctly tagged one way dual carriage way... :) Which are those cases? Maybe the tertiary was not connected? Did you check the map data in the area? Usually bad routing results come from bad map data ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/1 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org: On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Why would who maintains a road directly determine its administrative classification? If a municipality decides that some road is a motorway, we better tag it as such. In The Netherlands some provinces maintain short stretches of motorway, for example, while most motorways are maintained by the national government. The maintainer of a road can be tagged independently. So is it really a big change for Germany and Italy to define the highway tag as the administrative classification of the road? seems as if you got me completely wrong. The administrative classification _IS_ about who maintains the road (at least in Germany and Italy). While BAB (Bundesautobahn / motorway) and Bundestraße (federal road) are maintained by the federal administration, Landstraßen (~Land-roads) are maintained by the Bundesland (~region) and Kreisstraßen (comunal road) by the municipality. But as I tried to explain this does not mean that every Bundesstraße is a bigger and more important road. There are Kreisstraßen (comunal roads) that are more important (and physically bigger) than other Bundesstraßen or Landstraßen. That's why we cancelled the idea of tagging highway according to administrative class already years ago. Of course I don't want to reimplement it. The problem with 'importance' is that it is too vague and it is the task of the road maintainer to determine/define a road's function. Also, if there is a mismatch between a road's classification and its 'importance', we should tag the classification. what do you mean by classification? Administrative, physical or importance? There is clearly all the three of them, and of course I want to tag the administrative classification (inside ref-tag) but not as the parameter for the highway-class. The importance is derived from the topology of the road network, +1 which is already in OSM. it is there if we tag it. An example is a route through a town to a motorway access. The municipality this town belongs to considers this route inappropriate, while the municipality where the route starts considers it an appropriate route. The road inside the town is still tagged as secondary, while its maxspeed was already lowered to 30km/h. AFAIK its 'importance' has not changed, however, as no alternative route to this motorway access is available (there are several alternative access points to this an other motorways, though). So, do you think we should keep it as secondary which probably matches its importance (access to a motorway) yes, of course. Because as you wrote: there is no other way, i.e. if you want to go to this motorway, you will have to take it - it is important, gets a high class (secondary or primary). or tag it as tertiary or even lower which matches its classification (only meant for traffic from and to the town)? of course not. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Sat, 1/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Which are those cases? Maybe the tertiary was not connected? Did you check the map data in the area? Usually bad routing results come from bad map data ;-) Yup, the map data was correct, navit just did weird things and unclassified roads weren't involved, I was just pointing out other routing mistakes :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/1 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Sat, 1/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Which are those cases? Maybe the tertiary was not connected? Did you check the map data in the area? Usually bad routing results come from bad map data ;-) Yup, the map data was correct, navit just did weird things and unclassified roads weren't involved, I was just pointing out other routing mistakes :) OK, but actually this is a navit bug then, because I hope we all agree that a tertiary road should be prefered to a residential road in routing. Still I encourage you to check the data: weird things in routing are best hints for mapping bugs. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Sat, 1/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: OK, but actually this is a navit bug then, because I hope we all agree that a tertiary road should be prefered to a residential road in Yes it was a bug and I filed a bug about it in their bug tracker. routing. Still I encourage you to check the data: weird things in routing are best hints for mapping bugs. Yes their routing had a few quirks, in time they should be able to fix most if not all of these. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: seems as if you got me completely wrong. The administrative classification _IS_ about who maintains the road (at least in Germany and Italy). While BAB (Bundesautobahn / motorway) and Bundestraße (federal road) are maintained by the federal administration, Landstraßen (~Land-roads) are maintained by the Bundesland (~region) and Kreisstraßen (comunal road) by the municipality. But as I tried to explain this does not mean that every Bundesstraße is a bigger and more important road. There are Kreisstraßen (comunal roads) that are more important (and physically bigger) than other Bundesstraßen or Landstraßen. That's why we cancelled the idea of tagging highway according to administrative class already years ago. Of course I don't want to reimplement it. I agree. We have something similar in France. We had N(ational) roads which became some lower administrative roads because the French government gave them to the regions. The roads are still the same and as important as ever. It shows that we can't rely on administrative classification if only for the ref tag. In addition, I suspect that routing will be better off without the administrative classification. I don't think companies like Tomtom are caring much about those roads. Their mechanisms like TOM TOM IQ routes is working based on statistical data of the roads. In addition, map makers like Tele Atlas are using their own classification. I think that TA has 8 levels of streets. Anyway more than the average tuppence. Emilie Laffray signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Classifying roads in central asia, it is easier, and makes more sense in my opinion to use the highway ref in the administrative sense. Some countries or regions have 5 or 6 main roads with are the national trunk system. In places they are almost reduced to tracks through the mountains, through which all traffic flows - it makes little sense to mark then as a track though- physical attribute tags can do this, and using dual carriage way technique when relevant. Many central asian roads have fallen into disrepair in the last 20 years, but nonetheless remain trunk roads. These roads are generally the object of investment to improvement, so so will remain the principal highways, but improved over time. For example, the Chinese and Pakistani government are upgrading the Karakorum highway from 10m to 30m, it's physical characteristics will change, but the administrative classification and relative importance is likely to remain the same. Anyone driving through Tajikistan will not be expecting a German trunk highway service anyway! James Message: 5 Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:06:54 +0100 From: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag To: m...@koppenhoefer.com Cc: osm talk@openstreetmap.org Message-ID: a088870d0907311006q2e74e2aak6962b469c...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sometimes it's physical, sometimes administrative. Generally it's administrative where that is clearly defined (ie the higher road classes in developed countries), and more physical when it isn't. So saying either is correct wouldn't be entirely true. Richard Hi, reading the English page for tag highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway and comparing it to the German version, I found some inconsistencies. Whilst I generally would have tried to transfer the English content to the German page, in this particular case I think that the German version is better. The main definition in English is: The '''highway tag''' is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague ''description of the physical structure of the highway''. This goes back to an edit from 27th Oct. 2007 (Etric Celine). Until then (from March 06) there was just this: Applying to feature type: Physical . The German version defines: Das highway Tag ist das Haupt-tag f?r Stra?en. Oftmals ist es auch das einzige Tag. Es ist recht allgemein und bestimmt in etwa die Verkehrsbedeutung der Stra?e. (translates ~ The tag highway is the primary tag for highways. Often it is the only one. It is quite general and defines ~ the importance of the road for the traffic There are then 2 examples to show the advantage of a physical classification in respect to an administrative one (on the English page, dating back to the same edit): Here are two examples where the highway tag differs from the legal status: Some roads in the UK that were legally classified as trunk roads have been detrunked and are no longer designated by the government as trunk roads. These roads should still have the tag highway=trunk. /* This first example is valid for a classification according to the importance as well, while the 2nd would result in different tagging: */ A road which is legally designated as trunk road has a section where the road is not built to trunk standards, e.g. a single lane with passing areas. The section that is not built to trunk standards should be given a different value for highway other than trunk. _ If the highway-tag was the only tag on a road, I would agree with this approach, but as we are meanwhile tagging physical attributes as supplementory tags (e.g. lanes, surface, traffic-lights), as we do for administrative classification (ref), On 31 Jul 2009, at 18:25, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: wrote: Hi, reading the English page for tag highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway and comparing it to the German version, I found some inconsistencies. Whilst I generally would have tried to transfer the English content to the German page, in this particular case I think that the German version is better. The main definition in English is: The '''highway tag''' is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague ''description of the physical structure of the highway''. This goes back to an edit from 27th Oct. 2007 (Etric Celine). Until then (from March 06) there was just this: Applying to feature type: Physical . The German version defines: Das highway Tag ist das Haupt-tag f?r Stra?en. Oftmals ist es auch das einzige Tag. Es ist recht allgemein und bestimmt in etwa die Verkehrsbedeutung der Stra?e. (translates ~ The tag highway is the primary tag for highways. Often it is the only one. It is quite general and defines ~ the importance of the road
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Sat, 1 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/1 Christiaan Welvaart c...@daneel.dyndns.org: On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Why would who maintains a road directly determine its administrative classification? If a municipality decides that some road is a motorway, we better tag it as such. In The Netherlands some provinces maintain short stretches of motorway, for example, while most motorways are maintained by the national government. The maintainer of a road can be tagged independently. So is it really a big change for Germany and Italy to define the highway tag as the administrative classification of the road? seems as if you got me completely wrong. The administrative classification _IS_ about who maintains the road (at least in Germany and Italy). While BAB (Bundesautobahn / motorway) and Bundestra??e (federal road) are maintained by the federal administration, Landstra??en (~Land-roads) are maintained by the Bundesland (~region) and Kreisstra??en (comunal road) by the municipality. But as I tried to explain this does not mean that every Bundesstra??e is a bigger and more important road. There are Kreisstra??en (comunal roads) that are more important (and physically bigger) than other Bundesstra??en or Landstra??en. That's why we cancelled the idea of tagging highway according to administrative class already years ago. Of course I don't want to reimplement it. It seems to be an interpretation problem for the phrase 'administrave class' then because I clearly argued that who is the maintainer of the road should not directly influence the value of the highway tag. What I was trying to say is that I'd prefer to tag the importance that the road maintainer sets for a road. This *class* can usually be derived from how it was built, the maximum speed on the road, etc., not from how many cars actually drive on it or even its position in the grid. Road maintainers also take other things into account like how many houses are near the road, how much pollution and noise will be generated by traffic on the road, etc. On the other hand a road's class is often not clearly visible except for motorways. Also, there is usually no uniform classification system available - there is a proposed system for The Netherlands but it only has 3 categories which is not really enough... So in the context of Germany I say take 'Autobahn' and 'Kraftfahrstrasse' as a classes for the highway tag (not 'Bundesstrasse' and 'Landesstrasse'). These terms are defined in law, so it is not something OSM invented or a vague importance of the road. The problem with 'importance' is that it is too vague and it is the task of the road maintainer to determine/define a road's function. Also, if there is a mismatch between a road's classification and its 'importance', we should tag the classification. what do you mean by classification? Administrative, physical or importance? There is clearly all the three of them, and of course I want to tag the administrative classification (inside ref-tag) but not as the parameter for the highway-class. I mean how the road maintainer designates the road. An example is a route through a town to a motorway access. The municipality this town belongs to considers this route inappropriate, while the municipality where the route starts considers it an appropriate route. The road inside the town is still tagged as secondary, while its maxspeed was already lowered to 30km/h. AFAIK its 'importance' has not changed, however, as no alternative route to this motorway access is available (there are several alternative access points to this an other motorways, though). So, do you think we should keep it as secondary which probably matches its importance (access to a motorway) yes, of course. Because as you wrote: there is no other way, i.e. if you want to go to this motorway, you will have to take it - it is important, gets a high class (secondary or primary). No, I said there are other routes. This is just the shortest or fastest route for some people I guess. or tag it as tertiary or even lower which matches its classification (only meant for traffic from and to the town)? of course not. Well I disagree. IMHO we should tag what is 'on the ground', not invent things or try to tag what's in people's minds. If a government body gives a road it maintains some importance (or class/type) we should tag it accordingly. Another example is Bicycle streets. These are designated by municipalities in .nl (and .de) but they do not have a uniform importance: for cars they are e.g. a living street but for bicycles they are part of an important and much used route. These roads are classified specially by the road maintainer, and this should be reflected in the highway= value. What is the conclusion according to your proposal? Anyway how do you determine if something is a cycleway, from its importance and its position in the grid? That does not work while it
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Sat, 1/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: A long standing convention on a printed Australian map is that a road which is unsealed is drawn with a broken line of the same colour and width as the road would have if it was sealed. That is to do with rendering, not how the data is stored, and there is numerous other differences with how we normally see maps drawn and the OSM default. I have permission to keep using a work server to host a map server for the foreseeable future, all we need is suitable graphics and a suitable style sheet and we can produce maps that we're used to. While I can help with hosting, I have no graphic ability what so ever so we'd either need to pool money to pay someone or hope someone wants to donate a style :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Sat, 1/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: A long standing convention on a printed Australian map is that a road which is unsealed is drawn with a broken line of the same colour and width as the road would have if it was sealed. That is to do with rendering, not how the data is stored, and there is numerous other differences with how we normally see maps drawn and the OSM default. I have permission to keep using a work server to host a map server for the foreseeable future, all we need is suitable graphics and a suitable style sheet and we can produce maps that we're used to. While I can help with hosting, I have no graphic ability what so ever so we'd either need to pool money to pay someone or hope someone wants to donate a style :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
...or locally-maintained rural roads that are important for local navigation, such as connecting a shortcut between two nearby highways which don't intersect. I'm happy that there seems (until now, few contribution in this thread) a consensus on the proposed modification of the basic highway-definition (mainly importance and not physical state of a road). I'll wait a little bit, but if there is no contradiction I will change the page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway according to this. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com writes: --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a metropolitan area will very often be at least 2+2. Does mapnik know the difference? Primary and secondary are about importance. In rural areas, a 1+1 lane can be very important, and I think the point is that in the city if it were that important it probably would be bigger. If you are about #lanes, there's a lanes tag for that. pgpYzPVVotabG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: were that important it probably would be bigger. If you are about #lanes, there's a lanes tag for that. Does any renders currently use the number of lanes to vary the outputted images, or should this be something submitted as a wish list, that not only does type of road output differently but the number of lanes are important too? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: - residential roads (just in residential areas, no connecting function, you will not take this if you don't live in the area) - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they don't exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are either no residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than residential streets and are used to access residential streets) Most of what I classify as unclassified roads (not streets) are usually lower on the chain than residential, as they only have 1 lane in most cases, so I wouldn't expect them to exist in urban areas. it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a metropolitan area will very often be at least 2+2. I object to the notion that there should be a different relationship between residential/unclassified in urban vs rural areas. We already have too much of that, and I think it's a sign our definitions are off base. There's no clear boundary, and we have to translate this to garmin, etc., use in Free nav programs, and render, so people doing things differently based on where they are or what they're used to seems like trouble. That said, I see the trouble with the secondary/tertiary definition (will send separately about that). To me these are both real streets that you can drive on roads you would probably only use to get to places near them and the only difference is that residential means it's mostly bordered by residences. Arguably the whole notion of highway=residential is somewhat broken, since residences nearby should be landuse=residential polygons, but it does affect the feel of the road and it runs pretty deep in osm, so I won't really object. Perhaps we need a specific highway=alley tag to say this is a road you can drive on, but it's definitely narrow/inferior and you don't want to go there unless you have to in order to get somewhere. pgpFSIGAtrBNE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. Neither does the JOSM author(s) for that matter as they didn't treat unnamed unclassified roads as a warning/error until I submitted a patch for it and he/they are in Germany. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: I object to the notion that there should be a different relationship between residential/unclassified in urban vs rural areas. We already have too much of that, and I think it's a sign our definitions are off base. There's no clear boundary, and we have to translate this to garmin, etc., use in Free nav programs, and render, so people doing things differently based on where they are or what they're used to seems like trouble. That said, I see the trouble with the secondary/tertiary definition (will send separately about that). Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. To me these are both real streets that you can drive on roads you would probably only use to get to places near them and the only difference is that residential means it's mostly bordered by residences. nah, not all streets where someone lives nearby are residential streets. They are just then residential streets, if they are small and used only/mainly by residents. Big streets with external traffic are never residential streets, even if people live there. Arguably the whole notion of highway=residential is somewhat broken, since residences nearby should be landuse=residential polygons, but it does affect the feel of the road and it runs pretty deep in osm, so I won't really object. It's an easy way to speed up routing calculation and to improve the results. Perhaps we need a specific highway=alley tag to say this is a road you can drive on, but it's definitely narrow/inferior and you don't want to go there unless you have to in order to get somewhere. we already have this. Highway=service, service=alley. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
David Lynch djly...@gmail.com writes: Motorway: More than one grade-separated intersection in a row, high speed, oncoming traffic separated. A Motorway should meet the physical standards of what the best national Motorway/Interstate/etc. roads are. Generally entirely divided and limited access with on/offramps. If you mean that by 'grade-separated intersections', that's fine. Trunk: Wide, high-speed roads with limited cross traffic. Usually dual carriageways in urban areas. I see Trunk as almost motorway, but a little deficient. Definitely has to be divided by at least some concrete (== dual carriageway), and mostly limited access with infrequent at-grade intersections. Urban areas are so crowded that roads that meet this definition have to be basically motorway like but probably more curvy with lanes that aren't wide enough, and have too many on/offramps. Example for those who know Boston: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.35331lon=-71.10166zoom=15layers=B000FTF Storrow Drive is trunk (limited access), while Memorial Drive is primary (side streets come out to it). Both have underpasses for through traffic, but Memorial Drive sometimes and Storrow Drive ~always. And west of boston; http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4355lon=-71.2795zoom=14layers=B000FTF Here SR2 is divided (Jersey barriers, just 0.5m wide x 1m high concrete), and there is maybe 1 farmstand per km, and perhaps 5km between intersections. To the East it's motoray (you really could not tell it's not an Interstate except for the signs, or maybe there are a few too many exits). (I need to retag 2 inside 128 as motorway.) So for motorway and trunk we are still talking physical, although physical and important correlate very very well. Primary: In rural areas, a major road between cities which does not meet motorway or trunk standards. In urban areas, a major road which is particularly long or heavily traveled, or the extension of a road which is primary outside the urban area. Here the notion of 'cities' is problematic. In Mass, city is a legal term, and some are only 3 people. If you mean 'by city, someplace that's big enough to have a self-identity as an urban center, as opposed to viewing itself as part of some larger urban center, that's fine. Secondary: Other major urban streets not meeting the standards for primary. Also highways in rural areas. I have the notion that secondary should be at least a state highway or a road that goes considerable distance and is used for medium-distance travel, meaning a significant number of people drive 20km or more on it. Tertiary: City streets that have a median, more than two lanes, and/or moderate traffic, but are low speed and primarily residential, or locally-maintained rural roads that are important for local navigation, such as connecting a shortcut between two nearby highways which don't intersect. locally-maintained??? Who paves a road is highly variable by jurisdiction and not relevant to this classification. My real problem with the split urban/rural approach is that we're sort of defining by distance, and sort of by population. Importance (to whom) is some blend of these. I live outside the city, so I see the (existing) primary goes many many towns, secondary goes multiple towns and tertiary goes to the next town, or is a major road for getting around town definition as very natural. In the city, there are vastly more roads, and if this rule were applied there would be a large number of tertiary and then a huge number of residential/unclassified roads. From my country point of view this is correct. But when I look at Cambridge (a city I lived in for 12 years, 6 of them with a car), I see vast numbers of 'secondary' roads that are not in my view even close to secondary status: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.3658lon=-71.0996zoom=14layers=B000FTF and a lot of tertiary roads that seem overrated. The root of the problem is that if you look at Camrbidge and Stow at the same zoom level: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.4357lon=-71.504zoom=14layers=B000FTF a road of a length marked tertiary in Cambridge goes by 15 little streets is just a road with 20 houses on it and maybe a cross street. So, from the distance point of view, roads in Cambridge are grossly overmarked. If you are in Cambridge and trying to go someplace 25 km away, this tagging is not helpful. If you are trying to get someplace in Cambridge, it makes a lot of sense. I think what's really going on is that there is a bigger hierarchy of roads than our present categorization supports. If you took Cambridge and downgraded all the tertiary to quarternary(!) and then 80% of secondary to tertiary, it would seem about right. I think people tagging in cities want (and need) a category for roads that are of local importance within a neighborhood that's only 1-2km across. The alternative is to redefine 'gets you to the next big area' in terms of population,
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping as residential. Maybe you could post an example so I can try to understand you better. The English page for residential states: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. so maybe you should think about your tagging habits. Neither does the JOSM author(s) for that matter as they didn't treat unnamed unclassified roads as a warning/error until I submitted a patch for it and he/they are in Germany. Well, I'm in Italy but occasionally also mapping in Germany. No road at all (maybe residential) does have to have a name. There are warnings in cases they are not valid and there are cases where no warnings are displayed. Those warnings are hints, and it is a question of personal preferences which warnings should be displayed. I don't see your point in this regard. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping Sorry, I was thinking of the Australian guidelines... http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging Well, I'm in Italy but occasionally also mapping in Germany. No road I wasn't implying you were in Germany, just saying the JOSM guy(s) which are in Germany, thought most unclassified roads were really minor and didn't throw a warning/information error until I submitted a patch for it. http://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/2806 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping as residential. Maybe you could post an example so I can try to understand you better. The English page for residential states: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. so maybe you should think about your tagging habits. Sorry - I had missed that in all the discussion about unclassified. In that case I think unclassified meets what I was talking about for quarternary ( below tertiary, above residential). So probably the renderers need a way to show unclassified as less important than tertiary. And perhaps 'residential' should be redefined as only used by people who are traveling to a location on that road or a less important road that branches off it, removing the 'residential' notion. pgpeX1PsKJiut.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: So probably the renderers need a way to show unclassified as less important than tertiary. they (t...@h, mapnik, cyclemap) are already doing this. And perhaps 'residential' should be redefined as only used by people who are traveling to a location on that road or a less important road that branches off it, removing the 'residential' notion. no, redefinition of widely used main tags (used according to the existent definition, not updating the definition to common usage) doesn't seem a good idea to me. I suggest to update your local tagging guidelines (can't check them now due to problems of the wiki-server, or your link was misspelled). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: 2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: So probably the renderers need a way to show unclassified as less important than tertiary. they (t...@h, mapnik, cyclemap) are already doing this. Sorry, I meant 'lower than tertiary and more important than residential'. I don't see unclassified showing up more than residential, and I don't see it in the map key on the main osm site. And perhaps 'residential' should be redefined as only used by people who are traveling to a location on that road or a less important road that branches off it, removing the 'residential' notion. no, redefinition of widely used main tags (used according to the existent definition, not updating the definition to common usage) doesn't seem a good idea to me. I suggest to update your local tagging guidelines (can't check them now due to problems of the wiki-server, or your link was misspelled). In that case we need a parallel tag to unclassified, meaning local-only but without the residential notion. But around me there aren't enough such roads to worry about, and they're all tagged residential from massgis import anyway :-) pgpqpaHMxnPxy.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: In that case we need a parallel tag to unclassified, meaning local-only but without the residential notion. But around me there aren't enough such roads to worry about, and they're all tagged residential from massgis import anyway :-) well. Propose what you like, but in this case AFAIR this was already decided to not do it (use unclassified instead), but decisions in the past don't mean you can't give it another try now. IMHO we already have all highway-classes that we need. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: I don't know where you are mapping and which streets you are mapping as residential. Maybe you could post an example so I can try to understand you better. The English page for residential states: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. so maybe you should think about your tagging habits. This definition od residential/unclassified was added not long ago by some person from the german mailing list(at least he started the discussion. maybe someone else changed it, can't check at the moment, the wiki is under maintenance...). I think you know that. We had residential and unclassified as equal classes for ages now and the only difference was the question wether or not it is in some residential area. Then suddenly this person came up with desperately needing a road class between tertiary and residential. This is not a problem, just add some new class..., one may think, but instead he wanted to re-define a tag that was in use for a very long time with another definition and this, in my eyes, is _not_ OK and a very bad idea. It's basically the same mistake as suddenly, all highway=footway are a shortcut for highway=path, foot=designated, which is simply not true, because footway has been used with some other definition before highway=path *=designated came up... -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Sometimes it's physical, sometimes administrative. Generally it's administrative where that is clearly defined (ie the higher road classes in developed countries), and more physical when it isn't. So saying either is correct wouldn't be entirely true. Richard On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, reading the English page for tag highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway and comparing it to the German version, I found some inconsistencies. Whilst I generally would have tried to transfer the English content to the German page, in this particular case I think that the German version is better. The main definition in English is: The '''highway tag''' is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague ''description of the physical structure of the highway''. This goes back to an edit from 27th Oct. 2007 (Etric Celine). Until then (from March 06) there was just this: Applying to feature type: Physical . The German version defines: Das highway Tag ist das Haupt-tag für Straßen. Oftmals ist es auch das einzige Tag. Es ist recht allgemein und bestimmt in etwa die Verkehrsbedeutung der Straße. (translates ~ The tag highway is the primary tag for highways. Often it is the only one. It is quite general and defines ~ the importance of the road for the traffic There are then 2 examples to show the advantage of a physical classification in respect to an administrative one (on the English page, dating back to the same edit): Here are two examples where the highway tag differs from the legal status: Some roads in the UK that were legally classified as trunk roads have been detrunked and are no longer designated by the government as trunk roads. These roads should still have the tag highway=trunk. /* This first example is valid for a classification according to the importance as well, while the 2nd would result in different tagging: */ A road which is legally designated as trunk road has a section where the road is not built to trunk standards, e.g. a single lane with passing areas. The section that is not built to trunk standards should be given a different value for highway other than trunk. _ If the highway-tag was the only tag on a road, I would agree with this approach, but as we are meanwhile tagging physical attributes as supplementory tags (e.g. lanes, surface, traffic-lights), as we do for administrative classification (ref), I am in favour of changing the definition for highway (no longer mainly physical but mainly according to importance / logical position in the grid). The other properties and attributes will still persist (ref, lanes, dual-carriageways, surface, tracktype, ...) and describe the situation. Also there won't be many changes / tagging-modifications necessary, because bigger roads are generally more important roads. What do you think about this? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Martin Simon grenzde...@gmail.com: 2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway. This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use residential or unclassified for streets in towns: * unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic * residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. This definition od residential/unclassified was added not long ago by some person from the german mailing list(at least he started the discussion. maybe someone else changed it, can't check at the moment, the wiki is under maintenance...). I think you know that. no, actually I am not aware that there were some recent changes, but I was myself seeing and using this hierarchy (unclassified above residential) since I am mapping (Jan 08), so I would also agree to this modification if it was (formally in the wiki) just a recent one, which I doubt (I remember some personal talk with local mappers here in the last year who saw this exactly the same way, so I don't think this is just my personal believe. I also remember that Frederik Ramm wrote in the German ML that he doesn't use unclassifieds in towns or villages. We had residential and unclassified as equal classes for ages now and the only difference was the question wether or not it is in some residential area. Then suddenly this person came up with desperately needing a road class between tertiary and residential. This is not a problem, just add some new class..., one may think, but instead he wanted to re-define a tag that was in use for a very long time with another definition and this, in my eyes, is _not_ OK and a very bad idea. I don't really see, why this is so bad in this case. IMHO there won't be any change of tags necessary in the maps (unclassified was before and after the lowest class (of real roads, i.e. not service and tracks) in both: urban and rural areas, so where's the problem?). It's basically the same mistake as suddenly, all highway=footway are a shortcut for highway=path, foot=designated, which is simply not true, because footway has been used with some other definition before highway=path *=designated came up... never used path in my life (I tag them footway and if bikes are allowed bicycle=yes) so don't see the point. Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com: Sometimes it's physical, sometimes administrative. Generally it's administrative where that is clearly defined (ie the higher road classes in developed countries), and more physical when it isn't. So saying either is correct wouldn't be entirely true. actually my point was neither administrative nor physical but according to the importance. Both, administrative and physical we are already tagging with specific tags, so why should we double them? The only class that is derived from administrative criteria in Germany and Italy is motorroad. In Italy there is also a discussion about trunks, but the rest (from primary on) is tagged independantly from who cares for the maintenance (administrative class). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: But, as I understand trunk, it's meant to be a physical upgrade from primary, which is a national-level highway. Well, you could argue that it would be valid to adopt this standard in a country where it was deemed useful. But that's not how it is here. Ireland has two grades of National road, primary and secondary (corresponding fairly well to how the UK has two types of A road). Like the UK, we use trunk and primary to differentiate between the two (trunk for primary, primary for secondary, and yes, I know this isn't how you'd ideally design the terminology...). But primary and secondary are measures of the route's significance, not of the actual build standard, which can vary widely. I've driven in .ie, and don't remember the numbering scheme, but the non-motorway main roads between towns that are not divided and have at-grade junctions and have national-type numbering seem like they ought to be 'primary'. Again, it's an argument that could be had, but that's not how we do it and not how most other cartographers do either. Not even Michelin, which in other respects does heed a road's quality and certainly its significance over actual classification. Cartographic norms here tend to favour blue (motorway), green (national primary) green-striped or red (national secondary), orange (regional), which, usefully, with our tagging scheme is what OSM renderers give us. This is not really a co-incidence if we consider the UK bias of the renderers and the closeness of our hierarchy of road types to theirs. And going with your suggestion would leave us without a useful differentiation between the primary and secondary national roads. What we have works, and build quality can be inferred by other means. And it seems that's how it is - the N62 from Thurles to the M8 (amusingly, someplace I've been to - the horse and jockey pub shows up at z12) is tagged as primary. That's because N-roads of 51 and above are national secondary routes. So far, none of these have had motorway upgrades and I'm not holding my breath. The N8 is trunk when it isn't M8, and I'm guessing N/M is a hint that it doesn't quite meet motorway standards, but I don't remember this well enough. Well, we've had N roads since before we had motorways, and for a long time we had very few motorways. So it's more a case of a motorway being a part of a national route that _is_ at motorway standard _and_ has been so classified (since we also have a now-dying[1] tradition of building motorway-standard roads and leaving them classified as N roads). In fact, on this last point, it's a good reason _not_ to tag for road quality. If you did, Ireland would have plenty of roads appearing on the map as motorway but not identifiable as such on the ground. Confused yet? Dermot [1] The majority of motorway-grade road not previously classified as motorway is being redesignated as motorway on 28th August, and most already appear as such on the ground. OSM is once again the first map to reflect this reality. -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Dermot McNally derm...@gmail.com: 2009/7/31 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: Well, you could argue that it would be valid to adopt this standard in a country where it was deemed useful. But that's not how it is here. Ireland has two grades of National road, primary and secondary (corresponding fairly well to how the UK has two types of A road). Like the UK, we use trunk and primary to differentiate between the two (trunk for primary, primary for secondary, and yes, I know this isn't how you'd ideally design the terminology...). But primary and secondary are measures of the route's significance, not of the actual build standard, which can vary widely. This is exactly my point. The highway class already represents the importance of the road, not it's physical build standard, but the wiki defines the latter to be relevant. I was suggesting to update the definition according to best-practise, not to change the meaning of existing tagging. If the administrative class in your country coincides with the importance: fine. Nothing changes. Unfortunately this is neither in Italy nor in Germany the case: some roads have been downgraded / passed to a lower maintenance entity for administrative reasons (now somebody else pays and cares for the maintenance, what was before a nation / federal road has sometimes become a regional / Landstraße). Others, like Kreisstraßen in Germany (comunal roads) have been upgraded and are now almost Autobahn-Standard. As result of this, it has been agreed not to corelate administrative status and highway-class. But there is a problem with tagging pure physical state as well: it depends on the context. In a rural area a secondary or primary street will be much smaller than in a highly dense urban area. This is why importance of the road seems most useful (be it for routers or to structure visually and according to significance on rendered maps). And going with your suggestion would leave us without a useful differentiation between the primary and secondary national roads. What we have works, and build quality can be inferred by other means. again: build quality is what the wiki _already defines for 2 years now_, it is not what seems reasonable or actual practise, that's why I started this thread. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: This is exactly my point. The highway class already represents the importance of the road, not it's physical build standard, but the wiki defines the latter to be relevant. I was suggesting to update the definition according to best-practise, not to change the meaning of existing tagging. Lest there be any confusion, I agree with your goal here. I was hoping to add weight to it :) Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, John Smith wrote, replying to Martin Koppenhoefer: Well, I just see it as a hierarchical line: residential unclassified tert sec prim trunk motorway it's simple as that, and I don't see any problem. Maybe to you, but I don't see it that way based on reading the english language wiki page and mapping out rural roads lesser than residential as unclassified. I've done a lot of work in rural Australia, and after having lots of difficulty classifying roads was drummed into shape by the other mappers on talk_au. In Au we are not using unclassified in towns. We use unclassified rurally only for roads of least importance - the same ones we would tag residential in towns. The wiki is not in any way simple to comprehend on this - that's where I got lost. English around the world is used in many different ways, and what may be very clear to someone is 'as clear as mud in another branch of the language. This is before we bring in other languages. After this we wrote our own Au specific pages, because we have a whole continent and can bend the rules/guidelines our own way. Martin mentions http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential The history for this shows that was written after we wrote our Australian tagging guidelines - nearly a year later. Certainly by the time unclassified is being suggested for use in towns where Au mappers use tertiary the Australian practice is well entrenched. We mark out roads in commercial and industrial areas as residential too, even though dwellings are not the prime buildings. Liz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 Liz ed...@billiau.net: Martin mentions http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Residential The history for this shows that was written after we wrote our Australian tagging guidelines - nearly a year later. yes, this page is indeed dating back just to April 2008, what means, there has already been 4 years of tagging before ;-) Certainly by the time unclassified is being suggested for use in towns where Au mappers use tertiary the Australian practice is well entrenched. We mark out roads in commercial and industrial areas as residential too, even though dwellings are not the prime buildings. Well, you can do this, but most routers will try not to use residential roads if there is another way. This protects residential areas from through-traffic and travellers from slowly traversable residential areas, but both of these are IMHO not valid for industrial areas, that's why your aussie-way might produce slightly worse routing results (don't know, just an idea). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Fri, 31/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: areas, that's why your aussie-way might produce slightly worse routing results (don't know, just an idea). The navit routing engine prefers residential to tertiary in some cases... So not all poor routing is because we use unclassified for lower than residential. The navit routing engine also tried to get me to go the wrong way along a correctly tagged one way dual carriage way... :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes: secondary is typically used for travel at least 25km (between multiple towns) tertiary is used to get to secondary roads (to get to the 'real road' in the next town) this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban good point; that's what I am used to thinking about. agglomerations there should be different criteria though (and not necessarily they are physical, what is my point: let's put the definition according to everyday best-practise tagging). I think these notions still work in cities, but less clearly. primary roads are those you'd get on to drive to the next big city. Secondary to get to outlying towns. And tertiary to go all the way across the city. The problem is that there is a continuous hierarchy of roads in terms of importance, and when you get huge numbers of roads in the city the jump From tertiary to residential/unclassified is too big and people tag roads that aren't really tertiary as tertiary. I'm seeing a bit of that in Belmont (near Camridge, MA). Maybe it's ok to have a lot of tertiary, to show the more important local roads in cities. pgpZfKJJT3jlN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/30 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban good point; that's what I am used to thinking about. agglomerations there should be different criteria though (and not necessarily they are physical, what is my point: let's put the definition according to everyday best-practise tagging). I think these notions still work in cities, but less clearly. primary roads are those you'd get on to drive to the next big city. Secondary to get to outlying towns. And tertiary to go all the way across the city. no, sorry, but I completely disagree with you in this point. Inside big cities (urban agglomerations / metropols / ...) it's not about going to another city but about the traffic inside the city itself. Usually we start with - residential roads (just in residential areas, no connecting function, you will not take this if you don't live in the area) - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they don't exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are either no residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than residential streets and are used to access residential streets) - tertiary (just local significance, streets inside a certain area) - secondary (connecting streets that connect different areas, lower importance than primaries) - primary (main inner city connections, also used to enter and leave the city) - trunk (streets that are separated from the urban tissue but not classified as motorways (like elevated roads, overpasses, separated roads, they have ramps and usually no or very few traffic lights, necessarily dualcarriageways - in the UK they use administrative classification) - motorway (legal classification, in the US I guess you call them interstates, expressways and freeways but not sure about the distinction between those, maybe some are trunks) As in big cities most of the traffic is local traffic (by local I intend inside the metropolitan area), you can't classify IMHO the streets according to whether they connect other cities. Think about NYC. Following your definition there wouldn't be any primary roads in manhattan. The problem is that there is a continuous hierarchy of roads in terms of importance, and when you get huge numbers of roads in the city the jump From tertiary to residential/unclassified is too big and people tag roads that aren't really tertiary as tertiary. I'm seeing a bit of that in Belmont (near Camridge, MA). well, I personally consider a tertiary road to be quite small, because it is only on the 4th position (after trunk, primary, secondary), so it must be of little importance, otherwise it will be at least a secondary street. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: - residential roads (just in residential areas, no connecting function, you will not take this if you don't live in the area) - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they don't exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are either no residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than residential streets and are used to access residential streets) Most of what I classify as unclassified roads (not streets) are usually lower on the chain than residential, as they only have 1 lane in most cases, so I wouldn't expect them to exist in urban areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/31 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com: --- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: - residential roads (just in residential areas, no connecting function, you will not take this if you don't live in the area) - unclassified roads (not clear, there are voices that they don't exist in urban areas, I personally use them if there are either no residents nearby or if they are slightly bigger than residential streets and are used to access residential streets) Most of what I classify as unclassified roads (not streets) are usually lower on the chain than residential, as they only have 1 lane in most cases, so I wouldn't expect them to exist in urban areas. it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a metropolitan area will very often be at least 2+2. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Thu, 30/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: it's a different meaning in urban areas as in rural areas. Many of what you tag as primary and secondary in rural areas (especially low density ones) has 2 (1+1) lanes, while in a metropolitan area will very often be at least 2+2. Does mapnik know the difference? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 08:59, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The problem is that there is a continuous hierarchy of roads in terms of importance, and when you get huge numbers of roads in the city the jump From tertiary to residential/unclassified is too big and people tag roads that aren't really tertiary as tertiary. I'm seeing a bit of that in Belmont (near Camridge, MA). well, I personally consider a tertiary road to be quite small, because it is only on the 4th position (after trunk, primary, secondary), so it must be of little importance, otherwise it will be at least a secondary street. Agreed. When I've been tagging, tertiary roads are the street you take to get from one side of the neighborhood to the other - residential, but To paraphrase a post in one of the US tagging talk pages on the Wiki, this is what my tags end up being: Motorway: More than one grade-separated intersection in a row -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Accidentally hit send there... On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 23:12, David Lynchdjly...@gmail.com wrote: To paraphrase a post in one of the US tagging talk pages on the Wiki, this is what my tags end up being: Motorway: More than one grade-separated intersection in a row, high speed, oncoming traffic separated. Trunk: Wide, high-speed roads with limited cross traffic. Usually dual carriageways in urban areas. Primary: In rural areas, a major road between cities which does not meet motorway or trunk standards. In urban areas, a major road which is particularly long or heavily traveled, or the extension of a road which is primary outside the urban area. Secondary: Other major urban streets not meeting the standards for primary. Also highways in rural areas. Tertiary: City streets that have a median, more than two lanes, and/or moderate traffic, but are low speed and primarily residential, or locally-maintained rural roads that are important for local navigation, such as connecting a shortcut between two nearby highways which don't intersect. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
Hi, reading the English page for tag highway http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway and comparing it to the German version, I found some inconsistencies. Whilst I generally would have tried to transfer the English content to the German page, in this particular case I think that the German version is better. The main definition in English is: The '''highway tag''' is the primary tag used for highways. It is often the only tag. It is a very general and sometimes vague ''description of the physical structure of the highway''. This goes back to an edit from 27th Oct. 2007 (Etric Celine). Until then (from March 06) there was just this: Applying to feature type: Physical . The German version defines: Das highway Tag ist das Haupt-tag für Straßen. Oftmals ist es auch das einzige Tag. Es ist recht allgemein und bestimmt in etwa die Verkehrsbedeutung der Straße. (translates ~ The tag highway is the primary tag for highways. Often it is the only one. It is quite general and defines ~ the importance of the road for the traffic There are then 2 examples to show the advantage of a physical classification in respect to an administrative one (on the English page, dating back to the same edit): Here are two examples where the highway tag differs from the legal status: Some roads in the UK that were legally classified as trunk roads have been detrunked and are no longer designated by the government as trunk roads. These roads should still have the tag highway=trunk. /* This first example is valid for a classification according to the importance as well, while the 2nd would result in different tagging: */ A road which is legally designated as trunk road has a section where the road is not built to trunk standards, e.g. a single lane with passing areas. The section that is not built to trunk standards should be given a different value for highway other than trunk. _ If the highway-tag was the only tag on a road, I would agree with this approach, but as we are meanwhile tagging physical attributes as supplementory tags (e.g. lanes, surface, traffic-lights), as we do for administrative classification (ref), I am in favour of changing the definition for highway (no longer mainly physical but mainly according to importance / logical position in the grid). The other properties and attributes will still persist (ref, lanes, dual-carriageways, surface, tracktype, ...) and describe the situation. Also there won't be many changes / tagging-modifications necessary, because bigger roads are generally more important roads. What do you think about this? cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
If the highway-tag was the only tag on a road, I would agree with this approach, but as we are meanwhile tagging physical attributes as supplementory tags (e.g. lanes, surface, traffic-lights), as we do for administrative classification (ref), I am in favour of changing the definition for highway (no longer mainly physical but mainly according to importance / logical position in the grid). The other properties and attributes will still persist (ref, lanes, dual-carriageways, surface, tracktype, ...) and describe the situation. Also there won't be many changes / tagging-modifications necessary, because bigger roads are generally more important roads. What do you think about this? There are three separate concepts: physical structure administrative designation importance according to actual use In the US we are more or less following: interstate = interstate class, so motorway trunk is physical, but tends to match importance among primary/secondary/tertiary, it's not really about physical any more US highways tend to be important, and get primary without scrutiny state highways tend to be somewhat important and get secondary by default after that, state highways get upgraded to primary if usage warrants, and other semi-important roads get marked tertiary which blurs all three, but in a way that doesn't cause a lot of trouble. I would be in favor of trying to move slightly to importance-based tagging using ref to mark administrative designation using motorway and trunk as the current rules state. Here, the roads are so big physically that the importance more or less matches, and all such roads are important more or less by definition. using primary, secondary, tertiary without real regard to legal status or physical size, but according to usage: primary is typically used for long-distance travel, 100km or more, or for a road that until recently was still used for that and is still culturally important secondary is typically used for travel at least 25km (between multiple towns) tertiary is used to get to secondary roads (to get to the 'real road' in the next town) This is more or less that I do around my town, and it mostly matches the rules. pgp4X0xjO57L4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] definition of the main highway-tag
2009/7/29 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: There are three separate concepts: physical structure administrative designation importance according to actual use maybe there could be also a forth that is structural importance for the historical development (e.g. the main street, that was there before all others and the rest developed around it). I would be in favor of trying to move slightly to importance-based tagging me too using ref to mark administrative designation +1 using motorway and trunk as the current rules state. Here, the roads are so big physically that the importance more or less matches, and all such roads are important more or less by definition. yes, motorways are the most easy ones, they are motorways when they are motorways (in Germany Autobahnsign, in other countries equivalent sign). using primary, secondary, tertiary without real regard to legal status or physical size, but according to usage: +1 primary is typically used for long-distance travel, 100km or more, or for a road that until recently was still used for that and is still culturally important +1, even when the long-distances in Europe might begin at 50 km, the concept is the same secondary is typically used for travel at least 25km (between multiple towns) tertiary is used to get to secondary roads (to get to the 'real road' in the next town) this is working well for out-of-town situations. Inside urban agglomerations there should be different criteria though (and not necessarily they are physical, what is my point: let's put the definition according to everyday best-practise tagging). cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
