Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) In 1982 I bd a sump on one of those Qld main roads, two ruts in the ground, travelling from Winton to the Curry. I guess its one of those type of roads ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: I just realised in typing the last couple of emails that depending where you are from it depends how you interpret the current meaning of highway=unclassified. Hopefully by adding a couple of words in the right spot it will clarify things much better. could we make an effort to ask Graham (?) VK1RE because he reclassifies roads as he drives them, and certainly would have the most experience with this matter. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: Which is how the Germans have been using it, and the software they write is coded to work that way. except they forgot to tell the rest of the world. this project could do with a benevolent dictator some days (sigh) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Roy Wallace wrote: Unclassified roads are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than residential. not even sure this will work an unclassified road in my town isn't going to have the same volume of traffic as a residential road in a city. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: could we make an effort to ask Graham (?) VK1RE because he reclassifies roads as he drives them, and certainly would have the most experience with this matter. Is he on the list? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: could we make an effort to ask Graham (?) VK1RE because he reclassifies roads as he drives them, and certainly would have the most experience with this matter. Is he on the list? i thought so, but even with his job he might not always have internet access -- You will soon meet a person who will play an important role in your life. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and I don't think the road systems are all the same. I know that there is big differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't work as long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have to drive on the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go by car. I didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to work everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given the relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible worldwide. Liz, he has a point and it's very clear the Germans aren't going to let this go, the only solution regardless of who is right, wrong or indiff or who got there first is to replace highway=unclassified to something else. Then make this explicit in the main wiki pages what it exactly means. Anyone have any objection to highway=rural? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Anyone have any objection to highway=rural? Depends how you define it. If it's verifiable and exists only to describe the way, there's no objection from me. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: highway=rural seems a logical choice. Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as: Any road which is: a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production and b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on the road are traveling to or from a property rather than between rural centers. Thoughts? You haven't traveled much in western areas have you? :) Parts of National Highway 1 are a 4wd dirt track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) However there are numerous, mostly all weather gravel roads in western NSW alone, although too much rain makes them unusable, but the primary purpose in some cases is to go between towns but the funding was never forth coming to seal them. Another good example is the Fitzroy Development Road in Northern QLD http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=-32.7508,151.5851sll=-25.335448,135.745076sspn=56.828725,114.169922ie=UTF8ll=-23.52307,149.431229spn=0.465892,1.153564z=11 It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Depends how you define it. If it's verifiable and exists only to describe the way, there's no objection from me. It would essentially replace the meanings on this page for unclassified and unclassified would then be used as the Germans and others in Europe have been using it as a wide-ish industrial road in a urban area. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Regional_Roads ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Ross Scanlon i...@4x4falcon.com wrote: This road would be tagged residential or unclassified if it was in a metropolitan or urban centre When rendered should be the same as unclassified and residential. I wouldn't reference another highway class, but instead I'd more or less copy the current unclassified description: No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network in non-Urban areas. Depends on which part some of it's good, others mm. Sorry, I should have put that the northern end is ok, but the southern end is rough as guts. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I don't like that. 1) are you really suggesting using highway=rural for Other streets. Not generally through routes.? No, perhaps that was a bad example as I wasn't explicit. I would do this: No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network. Anything non-connecting would be almost a service road? 2) and are you really suggesting that highway=unclassified be defined as a wide-ish industrial road in an urban area? Width should be specified with width=*. An urban area is too vague. Industrial road is also too vague. People are reading the meaning of unclassified as a rung higher than residential, and treating residential as access=destination. Which might be fine in Europe but residential roads are used as interconnecting roads in a lot of Australia. Councils and the like just don't plan major through fares very well they just tend to upgrade them if people use them a lot, or that's what it seems to me. So I'm suggesting to make highway=unclassified as: No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the form of the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:59 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: [ highway=rural means ] No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network. Anything non-connecting would be almost a service road? Sounds ok. But you would need to define urban. People are reading the meaning of unclassified as a rung higher than residential, and treating residential as access=destination. Which might be fine in Europe but residential roads are used as interconnecting roads in a lot of Australia. Councils and the like just don't plan major through fares very well they just tend to upgrade them if people use them a lot, or that's what it seems to me. So I'm suggesting to make highway=unclassified as: No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the form of the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways. That definition confuses me. Unclassified roads form...the...network of residential...ways. That doesn't make sense. Is the network of residential and other urban road ways highway=residential or highway=unclassified? Do you mean the following?: 1) highway=residential is used for roads that are in any urban or non-urban areas accessing or around residential areas AND are not important enough to be highway=unclassified 2) highway=unclassified is used for roads that are in any urban area (including residential) that are more important than highway=residential AND are not important enough to be highway=tertiary ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
Never been further West than Parkes, I'm afraid. I guess this comes down to tagging what exists vs tagging intended use. For instance there are parts of the Pacific Highway which are 2 lanes but are tagged as trunk because they're the Pacific Highway and are therefore the most major road in the area. The situation you're describing of a major thoroughfare which is just a gravel road should probably be tagged as unsealed primary while roads of similar construction which exist so that farmers can get home could come under rural, even if both of them are nothing more than tracks in a coastal dweller's world view. (cripes that's a long sentence, sorry about that :p). - Original Message - From: John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 12:26 pm Subject: Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org --- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: highway=rural seems a logical choice. Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as: Any road which is: a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production and b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on the road are traveling to or from a property rather than between rural centers. Thoughts? You haven't traveled much in western areas have you? :) Parts of National Highway 1 are a 4wd dirt track. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_1_(Australia) However there are numerous, mostly all weather gravel roads in western NSW alone, although too much rain makes them unusable, but the primary purpose in some cases is to go between towns but the funding was never forth coming to seal them. Another good example is the Fitzroy Development Road in Northern QLD http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=qsource=s_qhl=engeocode=q=- 32.7508,151.5851sll=-25.335448,135.745076sspn=56.828725,114.169922ie=UTF8ll=-23.52307,149.431229spn=0.465892,1.153564z=11 It is rough as guts from what I've been told :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: I guess this comes down to tagging what exists vs tagging intended use. For instance there are parts of the Pacific Highway which are 2 lanes but are tagged as trunk because they're the Pacific Highway and are therefore the most major road in the area. The situation you're describing of a major thoroughfare which is just a gravel road should probably be tagged as unsealed primary while roads of similar construction which exist so that farmers can get home could come under rural Well said. I think it should be our primary focus to tag what exists (with surface=, width=, lanes=, etc) and ALSO tag intended use. They can co-exist peacefully, as long as we are conscious of which tags are designed to serve which purpose (which apparently doesn't seem to be the case at the moment, for highway=*). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, b.schulz...@scu.edu.au b.schulz...@scu.edu.au wrote: The situation you're describing of a major thoroughfare which is just a gravel road should probably be tagged as unsealed primary while roads of similar construction which exist so that farmers can get home could come under rural, even if both of them are nothing more than tracks in a coastal dweller's world view. (cripes that's a long sentence, sorry about that :p). The track is the bit that connects the unsealed road to their farm. In most cases, these roads would be considered tertiary at best, however there may be a tertiary road that is unsealed with connecting rural roads. http://maps.bigtincan.com/?zoom=13lat=-29.41871lon=151.00979layers=B0 The tertiary road is unsealed but is a fairly busy road compared to others that interconnect that are also unsealed, by going that way you can save 50km compared to taking the sealed route. There is still a lot of sealed roads in rural areas, the unsealed ones are short cuts even if there is a sealed route you can take. Most of these roads aren't the most pleasant route to take if you don't like bull dust and corrugates and other sorts of uneven surfaces, I wouldn't consider them to be tracks or residential either for that matter. I just realised in typing the last couple of emails that depending where you are from it depends how you interpret the current meaning of highway=unclassified. Hopefully by adding a couple of words in the right spot it will clarify things much better. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Tue, 4/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds ok. But you would need to define urban. from dictionary.com: ur⋅ban [ur-buhn] Show IPA Use urban in a Sentence 1. of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town. 2. living in a city. 3. characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified: He is an urban type. Although the intended use is the first, urban=town/city, I very much doubt that there would be enough roads in anything smaller than a town to need a higher capacity version of a residential road. That definition confuses me. Unclassified roads form...the...network of residential...ways. That doesn't make sense. Is the network of residential and other urban road ways highway=residential or highway=unclassified? Someone can probably clean up my intent a little, basically what I was trying to achieve was to say unclassified roads interconnect with residential and other roads and are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than residential, most europeans seem to think residential implies access=destination so they used unclassified to indicate this. Do you mean the following?: 1) highway=residential is used for roads that are in any urban or non-urban areas accessing or around residential areas AND are not important enough to be highway=unclassified As far as I'm concerned highway=residential only applies to urban (town/city) areas, it doesn't apply to rural/non-urban areas. 2) highway=unclassified is used for roads that are in any urban area (including residential) that are more important than highway=residential AND are not important enough to be highway=tertiary bingo primary - secondary - tertiary - unclassified - residential Which is how the Germans have been using it, and the software they write is coded to work that way. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Although the intended use is the first, urban=town/city, I very much doubt that there would be enough roads in anything smaller than a town to need a higher capacity version of a residential road. Ok with me. Someone can probably clean up my intent a little, basically what I was trying to achieve was to say unclassified roads interconnect with residential and other roads and are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than residential, most europeans seem to think residential implies access=destination so they used unclassified to indicate this. Maybe just say that, then, when it comes time to update the wiki :) Unclassified roads are likely to have slightly higher volumes of traffic than residential. As far as I'm concerned highway=residential only applies to urban (town/city) areas, it doesn't apply to rural/non-urban areas. Ok. Nice and clear. 2) highway=unclassified is used for roads that are in any urban area (including residential) that are more important than highway=residential AND are not important enough to be highway=tertiary bingo primary - secondary - tertiary - unclassified - residential Ok. Clear enough. In other words, unclassified = quartary and below. If this goes ahead I look forward to the wiki pages being cleaned up accordingly... :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Ok. Clear enough. In other words, unclassified = quartary and below. If this goes ahead I look forward to the wiki pages being cleaned up accordingly... :) I'd update it now but that's bound to upset someone somewhere. I guess put a proposal in for highway=rural and have the proposal update the highway=unclassified deff. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
While I don't feel it would be wise to alter the current wiki pages I made a proposal to try and sort it out indirectly. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway:rural ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au