Re: [talk-au] back to the NSW roads problem
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Liz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just been on a long trip on a "State Road" > And had too much time on the road to consider the classification of NSW > roads > The current classification tells us nothing about the road itself, merely > whether the the State of NSW pays the Council to keep the Road in order, > or > if the council does it out of more general funding. The State Road status is meaningless, but the State Highway shields are not... > > > So in Vic, the A, B, C, does in fact tell you about the road condition.Oris > meant too. > Ref VicRoads Drivers guide to Rural Victoria Aug 2002 > so in Vic a 'C' Road "will generally be two lane sealed roads with > shoulders. > 'B' Roads will have sealed pavements with two traffic lanes, with good > centreline and edge linemarking, shoulders and a high standard of > guidepost > delineation. Additional overtaking lanes will be provided on higher > volume 'B' roads to improve road safety and capacity. One supposes that when the RTA finally unveils these in NSW, they will reflect the same kind of scheme - ie the Monaro Highway south of Cooma is being downgraded to B23 IIRC... > > In fact the recent discussion about Adelaide is the same problem - do we > use > the classification used by governments with alternate agendas or do we > mark > what is there and how people use it? > That crazy Southern Expressway in Adelaide doesn't even qualify for M > status > because it isn't a divided carriageway with 4 traffic lanes. > (For those who have never seen this piece of engineering, it is one way, > which > way depending on the time of day). > I think the Southern Expressway certainly is of M status - just because its only one carriageway doesn't reduce that carriageway's motorway standards. It's never two way, so it's fine IMHO. On the other hand, the Cahill Expressway in Sydney is a bloody joke... no median strip, two lanes each way, of which only one is a through lane going east... stuart. -- Version: 3.1 GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V? PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] (LONG) Adelaide Highway Classification (was: Highway Classification Issues)
On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wups, sent the previous email just to Stuart not the list, got to watch > out for these people who CC lists... > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:37:46 +1100 > "Stuart Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think you are far too eager to mark every other highway as trunk. > > Sydney also seems dilapidated of trunks cause the motorways have > > superseded a lot of arterial metroads along their routes. > > I implicitly was counting them as turnk routes, Melbourne still creams > Sydney for trunk density. > > > Looking at Adelaide, certainly A22 is *not* a trunk route, it should > > primary. Trunk routes should be in the order of 50km or longer (all > > but one Sydney metroad is, and that one is because it goes north and > > the city just runs out of space). The A13 should not be trunk, > > because it seems to me that the (NH)A20 is the main route north east, > > and the A13 just parallels it. Same with Lower North East Road and > > North East Road. The one that is the main road out to that area > > should be trunk, the other should be primary. The A15 looks like it > > just parallels South Road too, but I can at least see an argument for > > that one. Also: is Main North Road or NHA17 the more used northern > > route? Because whichever is the more long-distance route (I'm > > thinking/hoping this is the NH) should be the trunk, and the other > > should be primary. > > Simply shot down in Sydney by M3 and M6 which are closer than some of > the roads you are talking about and cover nearly identical tasks > (middle ring route). So will you be removing one of them? No, because > they are Metroads, because a non-job-specific definition is labelling > those as the routes. The A13 pulls traffic from the NHA20 to a > completely different part of the city to the road itself, as do the M3 > and M6 when you look at them in detail. I don't agree with metroad 6 personally... but the reason for them is that it is allegedly a through route from wollongong to newcastle, whereas metroad 3 is a ring road around sydney from the southern suburbs to the northern beaches. the signed focal points of the routes are different to reflect this. > (As I've said in an earlier post I'm quite happy about rejecting the > A22 if we decide to reject any, this issue is whether we apply a simple > consitent definition or base our decision on whatever mood someone is > in because of what they are for breakfast that morning?) > > We are trying to work out a similar thing in Adelaide. As soon as you > don't have a definite thing you start getting arbritary definitions > like "50km in length" why not "60km in length" oh, that would drop > another 3 of yours off the list and it wouldn't be some comprehensive. > What makes 50km special? nothing, provided the route is genuinely a long-haul route and not just serving local traffic. its just a highway of 10 or 20 km is unlikely to be a long-haul route. > > > > So in conclusion, trunks are through routes, primaries are major > > highways. through routes aren't necessarily of high standard (think > > two lane rural highways, like the northern road in Sydney), and high > > standard highways aren't necessarily through routes (though they > > might have used to have been, i.e. no one would seriously use the > > Hume highway between Sydney and Casula any more, they'd use the m5, > > even though some sections of the hume highway are quite good > > standard, the road is now only for local traffic, not through traffic > > between Sydney and Melbourne). > > That works raelly well in sydney where the entire basin has only a > limited number of entry points (6 by my count). > In real cities that contact the entire countryside around them there > are numerous through routes running out of the city that are over 50km > long and no-one would concieve of making them trunks. thats debatable: port wakefield road to port augusta, main north road to sydney, ne road to ne, glen osmond road to melbourne, south road to south, anzac hwy to sw, port road to port adelaide. there you go, that's your radial trunk roads. google classifies those as its "major highways", so it doesn't seem unreasonable. > > > Using Sydney as a typical example for this doesn't cut it, Melbourne > matches a lot closer and it has a density of trunk routes similar to > Adelaide. Except that the definitions on the roads tagging page was originally written for Sydney, and so its the archetypal example of how to apply them. stuart. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] (LONG) Adelaide Highway Classification (was: Highway Classification Issues)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 16:53:49 +1030 > Jack Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I propose that all "A" routes in Adelaide and only "A" Routes are > > > labelled trunk. > > > > I don't think this makes sense. Here's why: > > > > Firstly, I'll get the two red herrings out of the way: if I recall > > correctly, the Gawler Bypass is signposted as A20, but it's actually a > > motorway. Similarly, the Port River Expressway signposted as A9 (and > > A13 for the part that used to be called the South Rd-Salisbury Hwy > > Connector Road), but also is a motorway. But I don't really think you > > intended the trunk definition to include those two. > > Ok, good point, that's a lack of my definition which should have > included "unless the route is superseeded by being near-freeway > conditions in which case it should be a motorway" or something similar. > The motorway tag I think always dupes any other lower tag. > > > Leaving those two aside, trunk routes (at least in urban areas) imply > > the big, heavily trafficed, wide, long, most significant roads within > > the greater metropolitan area. > > This isn't the definition as I see it from the wiki: > > highway=trunk. "Metroads" in the cities where they exist, or other > similar cross-city trunk routes in cities where they do not. > > Going by how metroads are used in the relevant cities there are roads > of lower quality that some of the roads you are proposing to eliminate > labelled as turnk roads (southern end of metroad 3 in sydney comes > immediately to mind). > > All the met-roads in other cities are about the cross-city nature of > things rather than the quality of the road. I would suggest the only 2 > "A" routes in Adelaide that don't fit this rule are the A22 and the A14. > And yes the southern portion of the A15 past Norlunga Centre is another > case that's debatable. > However even though I don't think they deserve it, I think it's much > easier to define it as "all A roads" and be able to display that than > make a list that everyone keeps debating about. >From a sydney prespective: Not all cross city roads are metroads. There's like only 9 of them in Sydney, and many major highways are not metroads (Cumberland Hwy being obvious example). They are truly the main trunk routes out of town (ie, the main road to the northern beaches, the north shore, the northwest, the west, the southwest, and the south), plus a couple of circumferential ones through suburbia. I'm thinking that if you are classifying more roads as trunk than sydney has, for a city smaller, then you aren't following the essence of the "metroad" definition. Also, from the UK perspective, only *some* A roads there are trunk, most are primary, and B roads are secondary. stuart. -- Version: 3.1 GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V? PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] secondary_link
Links are by default oneway, I think that's what the other person is getting
at.
stuart.
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Jack Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> A few days ago, I noticed a fair number of small ways in Adelaide's
> suburbs tagged as highway=secondary_link.
>
> There's no reference to secondary_link in Map Features, Australian Roads
> Tagging, or in any proposed feature on the wiki.
>
> So I assumed this was just an error, and changed them to
> highway=secondary so that all renderers would display them properly.
>
> Last night I noticed that a lot of them had been changed back to
> highway=secondary_link and about half of those were tagged additionally
> with note='LEAVE IT A secondary_link OR ENTER ALL THE OTHER DETAILS'.
>
> So I searched a little deeper in the wiki and found only two references
> anywhere to highway=secondary_link, both in German and both suggesting
> that secondary_link was not a valid value for the highway tag (at least
> I think that's what they were suggesting -- my German is a little
> rusty).
>
> I'd like to change these back to highway=secondary again (as I have done
> already for those not tagged with the note), but first want to make sure
> I'm not doing the wrong thing, so thought I'd ask the list.
>
> The alternative suggestion in the note ("enter all the other details")
> doesn't seem to make much sense for these ways. The ways in question are
> all short two node links between the sides of dual-carriageway roads
> where right turns to/from lesser (i.e. tertiary, residential,
> unclassified or service) roads are allowed. It doesn't seem to make
> sense for these very short ways to have names or refs, and things like
> maxspeed would seem to be moot on such short ways. Tags like is_in or
> postal_code wouldn't make sense either, since there are no addresses on
> any of these ways. So I'm not sure what was meant by "all the other
> details".
>
> Can anyone shed some light on the most appropriate tags for these ways?
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Jack.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
>
--
Version: 3.1
GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V?
PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New Mapper Sydney Campbelltown Randwick Help: Hi and Help?
just a suggestion, but if its a really tiny roundabout like those concrete ones everywhere, just make the node mini_roundabout. It's a lot easier. stuart. On Feb 13, 2008 2:13 PM, Paul Zagoridis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi everyone > > I live in Randwick NSW and work in Campbelltown, so I'd like to fix up a > few things near work. > > What is the page of the wiki (if any) that runs me through using JOSM to > add roads, roundabouts and how to link things correctly to existing > ways? I know to download from OSM and then upload my changes, which I've > so far only done to fix missing info e.g. I've named Elizabeth Lane in > Randwick. So I think I know how to update/fix data for existing ways. > > Now I want to add the streets and service roads near work and connect > them Badgdally Road Campbelltown. > > I want to add the roundabouts on Blaxland Road and others > > Lastly I want to mark up the divided roads in the area e.g. Blaxland > Road place traffic lights > > Any easy way to learn this? > > -- > Paul Zagoridis > mobile: 0414 707 343 int'l +61-414-707-343 > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > blog: http://www.wealthesteem.org > blog: http://www.zagz.com > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=815205625 > Xing: http://www.xing.com/go/invite/3306344.2a5ab0 > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulzag > Ecademy Profile: http://www.ecademy.com/user/paulzagoridis?xref=164318 > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au > -- Version: 3.1 GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V? PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging questions
Well you can't copy from Melway. Best to try ringing up council or department of lands. or vicroads? (I'm not sure how your road bureaucracy works, I'm in Sydney). On Feb 11, 2008 12:17 PM, Russell Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stuart, > > >> How do you tag an ambiguous name. One end of way is marked Michael St, > >> the other says Michael Av. What is the accepted way to obtain the > >> correct name, avoiding copyright maps? > > > > > > Looking at street signs. If street signs lie, well... at least our maps > > are an accurate representation of facts on the ground. > > I didn't explain that well enough. It is only a short street, about 200 > metres long. > The western end has a street sign "Michael Av". The eastern end has a > street sign "Michael St". I could label it with the name used by Melway > and the Lands Department, but I was wondering if there are any other > Victorian online sources where you can confirm the name, and which don't > have restrictions on how you can use the information. > > Of course I could ring up the council and ask them, and then get them to > correct their sign... > > > > -- Version: 3.1 GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V? PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Tagging questions
On Feb 11, 2008 11:04 AM, Russell Lang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have an answer to even one of these questions, then an answer would > be appreciated. I don't expect all questions to be answered in a single > email. > > Should full street types be used (Street, Road) or the abbreviations (St, > Rd). If the latter, then there needs to be a list of standard > abbreviations. I've seen Grove on signs as both Gr and Gv. The latter is > less likely to be confused with Cr for Crescent. If long names are used, > it appears the names do not appear at smaller scales. Long names only. > > > How do you tag an old name (e.g. Current name Glen Waverley South Primary, > old name still on some signs is Brentwood Primary)? > > How do you tag an ambiguous name. One end of way is marked Michael St, > the other says Michael Av. What is the accepted way to obtain the correct > name, avoiding copyright maps? Looking at street signs. If street signs lie, well... at least our maps are an accurate representation of facts on the ground. > > > How do you tag a Tollway as opposed to a Freeway? The name can be tagged > differently, but can we change the colour so that it is clear on the > rendered map? key="toll" v="yes". I agree colouring them differently would be nice (or even just haveing a differently shaded border). > > > How do you print out a map showing the streets without a name tag? At > useful resolutions you get most street names rendered, but some small > court names (the courts are small, the names are long) are not rendered > even though they have been tagged. > > How do you edit a map to make sure that all names of similar level are > shown? For example, when viewing Australia, Canberra and Sydney show up, > but none of the other capitals. > > Can you keep a street which is shaped like a T as a single way? Potlatch > won't join them. Driftwood Drive, Glen Waverley, VIC. no, you can't. what id do is make two perpendicular ways, unless the road naturally curves in one direction, in which case make a way for that and another way for the "other half" of the crossbar. > > > Is there a way to get a render with single lines for streets with the name > beside, similar to NatMap, VicMap or Melway? > > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au > -- Version: 3.1 GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V? PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Rainbow Street Kingsford
Yeah sounds like a good idea; I think its probably down as primary because its a state road? (It has nice green RTA signs on it...) But following government classifications is a bad idea because they are highly random and have a high latency with respect to development, IMHO. stuart. On Feb 10, 2008 10:42 PM, Franc Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > is anyone else familiar with Rainbow Street in Kingsford (Sydney) ? > > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-33.9242&lon=151.23514&zoom=16&layers=B0FT > > It's currently classified as highway:primary between the roundabout and > Avoca Street, > while from my experience driving on it I would classify it has > highway:secondary. Anyone > have strong opinions either way ? > > cheers > > -- > Franc > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au > > -- Version: 3.1 GCS dpu s: a18 C++ UL++ P+ L(+++) E--- W+++ N-- o+ K? w+++(---) O M-- V? PS+ PE+++ Y? PGP-- t+ 5? X? R-- tv-- b++(+) DI D+ G e* h! r !y+ ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
