Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
The Ambachtenlaan is the main road to get to the industrial site located at the dead end. It was designed to get extended. This ring should connect the Oplintersesteenweg, the N29 and the N223 to the R27 ring. Last plans designed a parallel ringroad with the R27a because this road can't be used as a new secondary road anymore due to the occurence of direct driveways to the roadshops and industrial plants. i think it can be secondary as well as tertiairy. > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:00:13 +0100 > From: Ben Laenen > To: talk-be@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions > Message-ID: <201212281200.13876.benlae...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" > > On Friday 28 December 2012 10:06:49 Kevin Grossard wrote: > > I can understand the current classification but i prefere to use the > > classification of the government. Should i undo my changement and make the > > ring primary again? In that case it makes sense for me to upgrade the N223 > > to a primary road allthough it isn't in rule with the wiki. In the other > > case i suggest to downgrade the N29 to a secondary road. > > If it were only up to me, I'd classify N29 as primary (I've seen some parts > of > that road and it's certainly "big enough" for primary). N223 no idea how that > road looks like, but I'd keep it secondary. And then to have a "logically > connected" map, the N3/N29 in the center of Tienen should all be primary as > well. Routers should pick the R27 based on tags like maxspeed and other data > like the number of crossings. > > But it's not only me who can decide of course :-) > > btw, what's the status of the Ambachtenlaan, which is that dead-end secondary > road on the east of Tienen? > > Ben > > > > -- > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > End of Talk-be Digest, Vol 60, Issue 23 > *** > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On Friday 28 December 2012 10:06:49 Kevin Grossard wrote: > I can understand the current classification but i prefere to use the > classification of the government. Should i undo my changement and make the > ring primary again? In that case it makes sense for me to upgrade the N223 > to a primary road allthough it isn't in rule with the wiki. In the other > case i suggest to downgrade the N29 to a secondary road. If it were only up to me, I'd classify N29 as primary (I've seen some parts of that road and it's certainly "big enough" for primary). N223 no idea how that road looks like, but I'd keep it secondary. And then to have a "logically connected" map, the N3/N29 in the center of Tienen should all be primary as well. Routers should pick the R27 based on tags like maxspeed and other data like the number of crossings. But it's not only me who can decide of course :-) btw, what's the status of the Ambachtenlaan, which is that dead-end secondary road on the east of Tienen? Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On 12/28/2012 01:10 AM, Ben Laenen wrote: On Friday 28 December 2012 00:22:17 Glenn Plas wrote: But the general wiki (which is probably USA based if I'm not mistaking here) does say so: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary There is not much room for interpretation except 'large' definition. It's not really any country based. The definition is as broad as possible, and every country makes its own rules. Maybe I should have been more specific, it's just that the person that wrote that would have done it from their own point of view and location. Chances where that he/they come from the USA. A lot of assumption of course. But I understand if you drive over R22 you would classify it primary (although it has 4 lanes divided by a central barrier, not 2). That would be a trunk to me as it connect to the E19 complex in Vilvoorde. There are cycleways, so no trunk... Right again. Forgot about the cycleway requirement for a second. The definition of the word 'trunk' got me there. As a subnote, the N211 which belongs to that complex goes primary until the city center, that is wrong imho matched against the theory. Yeah, N211 should be secondary east of the R22. West of the R22: makes sense as primary. Strictly following the rules it should be secondary of course, but this is one of those possible exceptions. I'll change that short section soon if we ok on this, but I think it's the other way around the east section of R22 at the roundabout should remain primary and the west part changed to secondary. I guess someone did something similar in Vilvoorde with the R22. Whether that should be done, not really sure here. That's why I bring it up as I'm not totally sure myself, but when I'm not sure, I check the wiki ... And of course the wiki isn't exactly the best reference for it :-) The "definition" has been slowly adjusted on the mailing list for example, but we can't expect everyone to know the entire history of course... Since I'm only subscribed recently but active much longer, I'm one of them that missed it. I guess I'll make a small summary with some examples (limiting to trunk/primary/secondary): * trunk: "expressways", prohibited for pedestrians and cyclists. May be signed with F9 (motorroad), but not always. Not all roads with F9 are trunks (e.g. tunnels or bridges if the road it is part of isn't classified as trunk) * primary: Nx or Nxx roads * secondary: Nxxx roads (or P roads) Exceptions to primary/secondary above: * ringways (usually R roads, but can be N roads): classification from highest classified road that connects to it. Inside R road primary road becomes secondary if the ringway deviates the traffic between the *primary* roads. Secondary roads stay secondary inside ringways (they don't become tertiary) (*). e.g. R13 http://osm.org/go/0ErVXu0 This should end up on the wiki, it's good info. * everywhere it makes sense... When a road without number connects two parts that do for example, or any other weird situation you may encounter. e.g. Corbiestraat as primary http://osm.org/go/0ErYW5cL Plezantstraat as secondary (no road number) http://osm.org/go/0Ej6EwLs-- Roads with suffix in their number (e.g. N123a): use your brains. Almost every case is unique here so it's impossible to writ down a good rule. e.g. N1c http://osm.org/go/0EpMnUUZ-- N60b http://osm.org/go/0EiFrVaz-- N15a http://osm.org/go/0EpLMAqA- N42c http://osm.org/go/0EiwSJL_- If a N-road really shouldn't be secondary at all, it can be classified unclassief/residential (not tertiary, if it can be tertiary it's sufficient to be secondary) e.g. N408 http://osm.org/go/0EpSSDeg (*) note that the previous years a lot of roads in city centers have been transferred from the region to the municipalities, and they lost their road numbers, so they've become tertiary even though there are probably still road numbers found on the street. I guess these are the rules we have now. They sometimes allow for some discussion in some cases of course, but they do seem to create a nice map. This should end up on the wiki, it's good info. I do like the map as well as it is now, but I try not let the renderer influence my actions (too much) although it plays a role. Glenn ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
>On 12/27/2012 23:22 PM, Glenn Plas wrote: >On 12/27/2012 10:28 PM, Ben Laenen wrote: >> I also wanted to point at Tienen, but I see it has been recently changed by >> someone:http://osm.org/go/0EqQDB8 >> There's the N29 coming in from the north, and the N3/N29 should stay primary >> because there's no ringway on the north. Now someone changed it to secondary >> which is incorrect IMO. > >It look to me someone hopes that this information ends up in GPS devices >so they router prefers the primary road :) . I don't know the place >there but it looks kind of strange to me that the N3/N29 isn't >primary. But zooming out and taking a peek at Leuven which I know >better I see the ring there is marked primary. So looking that those >without any knowledge on Tienen, I would conclude that the Tienen >N3/ring part is a lot different from the Leuven one, so it would support >the secondary classification. > >Thanks for the examples. > >Glenn I recently changed the ring of Tienen (N3) to a secondary road because the Sint-Truidensesteenweg (also N3) between the ring and the roundabout with the R27 already was a secondary road. The consequence of this changement is that there is no primary road connected anymore with the N29 Diestsesteenweg which is classified as a primary road (the only one left on the ring). For me it also doesn't make sense to keep the N29 primary if the N223 is secondary. They both connect the relative small cities Aarschot, Diest and the motorway E314 to another relative small city Tienen and the motorway E40. Nowdays the ring of Tienen is quite simular with the one of Leuven (southern part). Only the speed limit in Tienen is set on 70 km/h in stead of 50 km/h in Leuven. There are also plans to reduce the small ring of Tienen (N3) from a road with 2 lanes on each side to 1 lane on each side (already degrated to a secondary road type 3 in the structure plan of Vlaams-Brabant). An extension of the R27 to the N29 and the N223 won't be realised soon so there is no alternative for the N3 and no reason to degradate it. So even if the primary road changes to a secondary one, the gps will still folow the same route. I can understand the current classification but i prefere to use the classification of the government. Should i undo my changement and make the ring primary again? In that case it makes sense for me to upgrade the N223 to a primary road allthough it isn't in rule with the wiki. In the other case i suggest to downgrade the N29 to a secondary road. Kevin ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
2012/12/28 Ben Laenen > And of course the wiki isn't exactly the best reference for it :-) The > "definition" has been slowly adjusted on the mailing list for example, but > we > can't expect everyone to know the entire history of course... > Too bad that useful information is more or less kept hidden for others inside country specific mailing lists. If the wiki is no longer a good reference, it should be updated. Volunteers? ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On Friday 28 December 2012 00:22:17 Glenn Plas wrote: > But the general wiki (which is probably USA based if I'm not mistaking > here) does say so: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary > > There is not much room for interpretation except 'large' definition. It's not really any country based. The definition is as broad as possible, and every country makes its own rules. > But I understand if you drive over R22 you would classify it primary > (although it has 4 lanes divided by a central barrier, not 2). That > would be a trunk to me as it connect to the E19 complex in Vilvoorde. There are cycleways, so no trunk... > As a subnote, the N211 which belongs to that complex goes primary until > the city center, that is wrong imho matched against the theory. Yeah, N211 should be secondary east of the R22. West of the R22: makes sense as primary. Strictly following the rules it should be secondary of course, but this is one of those possible exceptions. > > I guess someone did something similar in Vilvoorde with the R22. Whether > > that should be done, not really sure here. > > That's why I bring it up as I'm not totally sure myself, but when I'm > not sure, I check the wiki ... And of course the wiki isn't exactly the best reference for it :-) The "definition" has been slowly adjusted on the mailing list for example, but we can't expect everyone to know the entire history of course... I guess I'll make a small summary with some examples (limiting to trunk/primary/secondary): * trunk: "expressways", prohibited for pedestrians and cyclists. May be signed with F9 (motorroad), but not always. Not all roads with F9 are trunks (e.g. tunnels or bridges if the road it is part of isn't classified as trunk) * primary: Nx or Nxx roads * secondary: Nxxx roads (or P roads) Exceptions to primary/secondary above: * ringways (usually R roads, but can be N roads): classification from highest classified road that connects to it. Inside R road primary road becomes secondary if the ringway deviates the traffic between the *primary* roads. Secondary roads stay secondary inside ringways (they don't become tertiary) (*). e.g. R13 http://osm.org/go/0ErVXu0 * everywhere it makes sense... When a road without number connects two parts that do for example, or any other weird situation you may encounter. e.g. Corbiestraat as primary http://osm.org/go/0ErYW5cL Plezantstraat as secondary (no road number) http://osm.org/go/0Ej6EwLs-- Roads with suffix in their number (e.g. N123a): use your brains. Almost every case is unique here so it's impossible to writ down a good rule. e.g. N1c http://osm.org/go/0EpMnUUZ-- N60b http://osm.org/go/0EiFrVaz-- N15a http://osm.org/go/0EpLMAqA- N42c http://osm.org/go/0EiwSJL_- If a N-road really shouldn't be secondary at all, it can be classified unclassief/residential (not tertiary, if it can be tertiary it's sufficient to be secondary) e.g. N408 http://osm.org/go/0EpSSDeg (*) note that the previous years a lot of roads in city centers have been transferred from the region to the municipalities, and they lost their road numbers, so they've become tertiary even though there are probably still road numbers found on the street. I guess these are the rules we have now. They sometimes allow for some discussion in some cases of course, but they do seem to create a nice map. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On 12/27/2012 10:28 PM, Ben Laenen wrote: On Thursday 27 December 2012 22:05:17 Glenn Plas wrote: There is a simple rule I use, which is being used for certain in plenty of countries like UK and described in the OSM wiki. A primary road is a road that connects larger cities, so a N road between 2 small town would be secondary. I think it matters that you look at the whole road with the same reference. That is the cities you look at. UK doesn't use a rule like that, they're even much more strict than us using road numbers... Yeah, it seems you're right, I've must have assumed at the time I was looking at the UK sections. they have conventions based on road types (ref.) See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_A_and_B_Roads#How_to_tag But the general wiki (which is probably USA based if I'm not mistaking here) does say so: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dprimary There is not much room for interpretation except 'large' definition. How much traffic passes over it, doesn't really matter. For instance, the N1 Mechelen-Brussel, someone tagged the part through Vilvoorde as secondary. Since Mechelen, Vilvoorde and Brussel counts as a connection through big cities plus, well ... It's number 1 of the N-class roads. I haven't really checked the situation in Vilvoorde, but one of the "rules" is that within a city center, primary becomes secondary if there's a ringway that will connect to the other primary roads to the city. Well, I know the place pretty well and there is no real ring road around Vilvoorde that reconnects to the N1. There are ways to get around there using Woluwelaan(R22) but that's not a common alternative practically.Your description however fits what I've changed as the Woluwelaan was marked as primary and it could indeed be considered a quarter ring (tops), what that one connects aren't really big cities (Vilvoorde -> Diegem -> Zaventem) . But it doesn't easily connect back to the N1. But I understand if you drive over R22 you would classify it primary (although it has 4 lanes divided by a central barrier, not 2). That would be a trunk to me as it connect to the E19 complex in Vilvoorde. As a subnote, the N211 which belongs to that complex goes primary until the city center, that is wrong imho matched against the theory. For example: http://osm.org/go/0Eg4Fgm N8 is secondary in Zwevegem, since the N391 was made to create a ringway around Zwevegem. This one makes perfect sense to be primary to me. http://osm.org/go/0EpYdO2L N1 crosses centre of Antwerp, but becomes secondary within the Singel. I totally agree on this one too. It still fits the 'primary' class to me as it connects cities, so once you are there, there isn't anything big you can connect any more. Very nice example. Haven't even thought of checking the other side of the N1. I guess someone did something similar in Vilvoorde with the R22. Whether that should be done, not really sure here. That's why I bring it up as I'm not totally sure myself, but when I'm not sure, I check the wiki ... I also wanted to point at Tienen, but I see it has been recently changed by someone:http://osm.org/go/0EqQDB8 There's the N29 coming in from the north, and the N3/N29 should stay primary because there's no ringway on the north. Now someone changed it to secondary which is incorrect IMO. It look to me someone hopes that this information ends up in GPS devices so they router prefers the primary road :) . I don't know the place there but it looks kind of strange to me that the N3/N29 isn't primary. But zooming out and taking a peek at Leuven which I know better I see the ring there is marked primary. So looking that those without any knowledge on Tienen, I would conclude that the Tienen N3/ring part is a lot different from the Leuven one, so it would support the secondary classification. Thanks for the examples. Glenn ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On Thursday 27 December 2012 22:05:17 Glenn Plas wrote: > There is a simple rule I use, which is being used for certain in plenty > of countries like UK and described in the OSM wiki. A primary road is > a road that connects larger cities, so a N road between 2 small town > would be secondary. I think it matters that you look at the whole road > with the same reference. That is the cities you look at. UK doesn't use a rule like that, they're even much more strict than us using road numbers... > How much traffic passes over it, doesn't really matter. For instance, > the N1 Mechelen-Brussel, someone tagged the part through Vilvoorde as > secondary. Since Mechelen, Vilvoorde and Brussel counts as a > connection through big cities plus, well ... It's number 1 of the > N-class roads. I haven't really checked the situation in Vilvoorde, but one of the "rules" is that within a city center, primary becomes secondary if there's a ringway that will connect to the other primary roads to the city. For example: http://osm.org/go/0Eg4Fgm N8 is secondary in Zwevegem, since the N391 was made to create a ringway around Zwevegem. http://osm.org/go/0EpYdO2L N1 crosses centre of Antwerp, but becomes secondary within the Singel. I guess someone did something similar in Vilvoorde with the R22. Whether that should be done, not really sure here. I also wanted to point at Tienen, but I see it has been recently changed by someone: http://osm.org/go/0EqQDB8 There's the N29 coming in from the north, and the N3/N29 should stay primary because there's no ringway on the north. Now someone changed it to secondary which is incorrect IMO. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On 12/27/2012 11:03 AM, Ben Laenen wrote: On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote: The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy, secondary and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some question marks). Using the current conventions means using the old classification when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable anymore for the current traffic. The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377 http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I suggest to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan. The other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads can be described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think? I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it to OSM. It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make Flanders almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give lots of roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give a nice map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it, things like that). I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need to include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to make a useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the category of official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM. That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is actually how it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always allowed some deviations from the rule where it makes sense. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be There is a simple rule I use, which is being used for certain in plenty of countries like UK and described in the OSM wiki. A primary road is a road that connects larger cities, so a N road between 2 small town would be secondary. I think it matters that you look at the whole road with the same reference. That is the cities you look at. How much traffic passes over it, doesn't really matter. For instance, the N1 Mechelen-Brussel, someone tagged the part through Vilvoorde as secondary. Since Mechelen, Vilvoorde and Brussel counts as a connection through big cities plus, well ... It's number 1 of the N-class roads. It should make sense that this is a primary road. Even after redesigning the part through Vilvoorde, it didn't make any sense at all to keep this secondary. This road should be primary from start to finish (Antwerpen-Brussel). I live closeby and Vilvoorde is being reconstructed at a fast pace, I already added a extra roundabout some time ago, which triggered me to look at those classifications closer. Reading that one wants to classify a road depending on how it's uses (so what rolls over it and how much) is not correct imho. You need to look at the designation of the road. the N1 is an easy example of course. And now we can start to discuss what big city is in Belgium ;-) But most of them are easy to classify as such with some common sense. I would still say that primary roads are easy, there is much more difficulty in determining lower type of roads. ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On Thursday 27 December 2012 18:15:05 Jo wrote: > Now that we're on the subject of road classification, The northern part of > the ring of Leuven has separate lanes for both directions, no traffic > lights, on and off ramps like a motorway and the maximum speed is 90 km/h > (a rare occurence these days in Flanders). > The southern part has crossings with traffic lights and a speed limit of 50 > km/h, complete with a truckload of traffic cams to enforce it. > > At some point I had tagged the northern part as trunk, since it's far more > interesting to go that way from east to west or west to east, so why > wouldn't we visualise that on a rendered map? Somebody retagged the whole > ring road as primary afterwards and I left it as such, since I didn't feel > like starting an edit war. It still feels like a missed chance to be the > better map though. Doesn't the northern part of the ringway have cycle lanes on each side? So far the "definition" of trunk is a road for fast traffic that disallows pedestrians and cyclists. To also reply to the next email: the original definition was about the motorroad sign, but that isn't really workable and it has changed into the definition above. There are roads with the sign that shouldn't be trunk and roads without the sign but which should really be trunk (these roads then have traffic signs that just prohibit pedestrians and cyclists (and mopeds, horse riders). Or the A12 between Antwerp and Brussels, I don't think the middle lane has any traffic signs at all on the parts where it isn't a motorway. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
Darn, they seem to have forgotten to put F9 traffic signs! I did forget to mention the bicycle lane is completely separate, although they do cross the on/off ramps. I thought N25 was still trunk between De Mol (Tiensesteenweg) and Blanden (we call it De Expressweg), but that's not true anymore. The F9 sign is not present either on the only bit of road which still is mapped as trunk in Leuven. Our connection between the Kapucijnenvoer on the ring road and E40/E314, the N264/ Boudewijnlaan. This one doesn't have cycle paths, but no signs to explicitely prohibit cyclists from using it. Hardly any cyclists consider using the escape lane though. There are better alternatives over the university campus, which look a lot more inviting. I guess I'll have to rest my case and put it to bed. Tuck it in and never look back :-) Jo 2012/12/27 Johan C > Sign F9 = autoweg = trunk > > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeersborden_in_Belgi%C3%AB_-_Serie_F:_Aanwijzingsborden > > Nice to read on this topic (sorry, it's in |Dutch): > http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16232 > http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16231 > > Cheers, Johan > > > 2012/12/27 Jo > >> Now that we're on the subject of road classification, The northern part >> of the ring of Leuven has separate lanes for both directions, no traffic >> lights, on and off ramps like a motorway and the maximum speed is 90 km/h >> (a rare occurence these days in Flanders). >> The southern part has crossings with traffic lights and a speed limit of >> 50 km/h, complete with a truckload of traffic cams to enforce it. >> >> At some point I had tagged the northern part as trunk, since it's far >> more interesting to go that way from east to west or west to east, so why >> wouldn't we visualise that on a rendered map? Somebody retagged the whole >> ring road as primary afterwards and I left it as such, since I didn't feel >> like starting an edit war. It still feels like a missed chance to be the >> better map though. >> >> Jo >> >> 2012/12/27 Kevin Grossard >> >>> > On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote: >>> > > The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy, >>> secondary >>> > > and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some >>> question >>> > > marks). Using the current conventions means using the old >>> classification >>> > > when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the >>> > > traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable >>> anymore >>> > > for the current traffic. >>> > > >>> > > The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan >>> > > Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377 >>> > > http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I >>> suggest >>> > > to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification >>> > > where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan. >>> The >>> > > other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads >>> can be >>> > > described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen >>> > > secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as >>> > > local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think? >>> > >>> > I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it >>> to OSM. >>> > It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make >>> Flanders >>> > almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give >>> lots of >>> > roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give >>> a nice >>> > map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it, >>> things >>> > like that). >>> > >>> > I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous >>> > discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need >>> to >>> > include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to >>> make a >>> > useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the >>> category of >>> > official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM. >>> > >>> > That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is >>> actually how >>> > it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always >>> allowed >>> > some deviations from the rule where it makes sense. >>> > >>> > Ben >>> >>> Okay, there aren't a lot of primary roads in Belgium but that's the >>> result of the historical urban planning and short term vision. >>> Fact is that primary roads also differ in reality from the secondary >>> roads. For example like the surface, the lack of houses, shops and >>> schools (lineair settlement and crossings through villages), the lack of >>> cycle tracks, ... >>> >>> Using the road numbers is a lot easier and that's a good argument but >>> the goal of OSM isn't making the Belgium roads more attractive, i suppose? >>> I don't get why a dead end primary road connected to a seconda
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
Sign F9 = autoweg = trunk http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkeersborden_in_Belgi%C3%AB_-_Serie_F:_Aanwijzingsborden Nice to read on this topic (sorry, it's in |Dutch): http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16232 http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=16231 Cheers, Johan 2012/12/27 Jo > Now that we're on the subject of road classification, The northern part of > the ring of Leuven has separate lanes for both directions, no traffic > lights, on and off ramps like a motorway and the maximum speed is 90 km/h > (a rare occurence these days in Flanders). > The southern part has crossings with traffic lights and a speed limit of > 50 km/h, complete with a truckload of traffic cams to enforce it. > > At some point I had tagged the northern part as trunk, since it's far > more interesting to go that way from east to west or west to east, so why > wouldn't we visualise that on a rendered map? Somebody retagged the whole > ring road as primary afterwards and I left it as such, since I didn't feel > like starting an edit war. It still feels like a missed chance to be the > better map though. > > Jo > > 2012/12/27 Kevin Grossard > >> > On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote: >> > > The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy, >> secondary >> > > and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some >> question >> > > marks). Using the current conventions means using the old >> classification >> > > when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the >> > > traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable >> anymore >> > > for the current traffic. >> > > >> > > The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan >> > > Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377 >> > > http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I >> suggest >> > > to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification >> > > where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan. The >> > > other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads can >> be >> > > described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen >> > > secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as >> > > local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think? >> > >> > I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it >> to OSM. >> > It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make >> Flanders >> > almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give >> lots of >> > roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give a >> nice >> > map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it, >> things >> > like that). >> > >> > I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous >> > discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need >> to >> > include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to >> make a >> > useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the >> category of >> > official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM. >> > >> > That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is >> actually how >> > it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always >> allowed >> > some deviations from the rule where it makes sense. >> > >> > Ben >> >> Okay, there aren't a lot of primary roads in Belgium but that's the >> result of the historical urban planning and short term vision. >> Fact is that primary roads also differ in reality from the secondary >> roads. For example like the surface, the lack of houses, shops and >> schools (lineair settlement and crossings through villages), the lack of >> cycle tracks, ... >> >> Using the road numbers is a lot easier and that's a good argument but the >> goal of OSM isn't making the Belgium roads more attractive, i suppose? I >> don't get why a dead end primary road connected to a secondary road can't >> be useful. They will look stupid but that's reality and where >> urban planning in Belgium is all about. >> >> But like you said, it would be useful to make a list with exceptions to >> make and keep it simple if that's the way you want to keep it. >> >> Kevin >> >> >> ___ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
2012/12/27 Jo > Now that we're on the subject of road classification, The northern part of > the ring of Leuven has separate lanes for both directions, no traffic > lights, on and off ramps like a motorway and the maximum speed is 90 km/h > (a rare occurence these days in Flanders). > The southern part has crossings with traffic lights and a speed limit of > 50 km/h, complete with a truckload of traffic cams to enforce it. > > At some point I had tagged the northern part as trunk, since it's far > more interesting to go that way from east to west or west to east, so why > wouldn't we visualise that on a rendered map? Somebody retagged the whole > ring road as primary afterwards and I left it as such, since I didn't feel > like starting an edit war. It still feels like a missed chance to be the > better map though. > > Jo > > There has been some German discussion about what "trunk" means after all. And it's relevant for Belgium too. As the "autoweg" sign has absolutely no meaning. The maximum speed is the same as for normal roads (120 when there are separate lanes, 90 default and 50 in residential area), so that sign really has no meaning. The (or at least some) Germans wanted to use "trunk" for the types of road where slow traffic is forbidden (no agricultural traffic and no bicycles). I think that's a far better definition than our current trunk definition. Regards, Sander ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
Now that we're on the subject of road classification, The northern part of the ring of Leuven has separate lanes for both directions, no traffic lights, on and off ramps like a motorway and the maximum speed is 90 km/h (a rare occurence these days in Flanders). The southern part has crossings with traffic lights and a speed limit of 50 km/h, complete with a truckload of traffic cams to enforce it. At some point I had tagged the northern part as trunk, since it's far more interesting to go that way from east to west or west to east, so why wouldn't we visualise that on a rendered map? Somebody retagged the whole ring road as primary afterwards and I left it as such, since I didn't feel like starting an edit war. It still feels like a missed chance to be the better map though. Jo 2012/12/27 Kevin Grossard > > On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote: > > > The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy, > secondary > > > and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some > question > > > marks). Using the current conventions means using the old > classification > > > when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the > > > traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable > anymore > > > for the current traffic. > > > > > > The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan > > > Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377 > > > http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I > suggest > > > to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification > > > where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan. The > > > other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads can > be > > > described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen > > > secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as > > > local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think? > > > > I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it > to OSM. > > It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make > Flanders > > almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give > lots of > > roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give a > nice > > map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it, > things > > like that). > > > > I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous > > discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need > to > > include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to make > a > > useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the > category of > > official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM. > > > > That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is > actually how > > it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always > allowed > > some deviations from the rule where it makes sense. > > > > Ben > > Okay, there aren't a lot of primary roads in Belgium but that's the result > of the historical urban planning and short term vision. > Fact is that primary roads also differ in reality from the secondary > roads. For example like the surface, the lack of houses, shops and > schools (lineair settlement and crossings through villages), the lack of > cycle tracks, ... > > Using the road numbers is a lot easier and that's a good argument but the > goal of OSM isn't making the Belgium roads more attractive, i suppose? I > don't get why a dead end primary road connected to a secondary road can't > be useful. They will look stupid but that's reality and where > urban planning in Belgium is all about. > > But like you said, it would be useful to make a list with exceptions to > make and keep it simple if that's the way you want to keep it. > > Kevin > > > ___ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
> On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote: > > The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy, secondary > > and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some question > > marks). Using the current conventions means using the old classification > > when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the > > traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable anymore > > for the current traffic. > > > > The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan > > Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377 > > http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I suggest > > to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification > > where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan. The > > other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads can be > > described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen > > secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as > > local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think? > > I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it to > OSM. > It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make Flanders > almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give lots of > roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give a nice > map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it, things > like that). > > I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous > discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need to > include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to make a > useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the category of > official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM. > > That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is actually how > it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always allowed > some deviations from the rule where it makes sense. > > Ben Okay, there aren't a lot of primary roads in Belgium but that's the result of the historical urban planning and short term vision. Fact is that primary roads also differ in reality from the secondary roads. For example like the surface, the lack of houses, shops and schools (lineair settlement and crossings through villages), the lack of cycle tracks, ... Using the road numbers is a lot easier and that's a good argument but the goal of OSM isn't making the Belgium roads more attractive, i suppose? I don't get why a dead end primary road connected to a secondary road can't be useful. They will look stupid but that's reality and where urban planning in Belgium is all about. But like you said, it would be useful to make a list with exceptions to make and keep it simple if that's the way you want to keep it. Kevin ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
Re: [OSM-talk-be] wiki highway conventions
On Thursday 27 December 2012 09:51:36 Kevin Grossard wrote: > The wiki about the highway conventions distinguishes primairy, secondary > and tertiairy roads using the N-numbers (although there are some question > marks). Using the current conventions means using the old classification > when the N-numbers were given. Various N-ways got reconstructed, the > traffic got redirected by other roads, some roads aren't suitable anymore > for the current traffic. > > The spatial structure plan for Flanders (ruimtelijk structuurplan > Vlaanderen) has a list with the primairy roads [pages 368-377 > http://www2.vlaanderen.be/ruimtelijk/docs/rsv2011/RSV2011.pdf]. I suggest > to adjust the wiki so there will be an uniform highway classification > where primairy roads are the roads selected in the structure plan. The > other N-roads can be describes as secondary roads. Tertiary roads can be > described as other important local roads (nl: steenwegen die geen > secundaire weg zijn). Minor or residential roads can be understand as > local roads (nl: lokale wegen). What do you think? I don't really think we can just take that classification and apply it to OSM. It may not look like it from the map in that file, but it would make Flanders almost void of primary roads. Our government isn't very keen to give lots of roads a primary status. And all the dead-end primary roads won't give a nice map either (ringway of Lier without any primary road connecting to it, things like that). I've been aware about the official classification (read some previous discussions in the mailing list archive), but I think we at least need to include some secundary classified roads tagged as primary in OSM to make a useful map. So far, we don't have a list of those. In the UK, the category of official primary roads would be tagged as trunk in OSM. That said, using road numbers to determine OSM classification is actually how it's done in most countries. It's not perfect by far but we've always allowed some deviations from the rule where it makes sense. Ben ___ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
