Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag

2009-08-05 Thread Liz
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

2009-08-05 Thread Liz
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

2009-08-05 Thread Liz
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

2009-08-05 Thread Liz
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

2009-08-05 Thread John Smith

--- 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

2009-08-05 Thread Elizabeth Dodd
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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith



--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread Roy Wallace
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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith

--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith

--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith

--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith



--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread Roy Wallace
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

2009-08-04 Thread b . schulz . 10
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

2009-08-04 Thread Roy Wallace
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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith

--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith



--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread Roy Wallace
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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith

--- 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

2009-08-04 Thread John Smith

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