Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Begin Daniel]

Bonjour Ken,
You wrote “this level of confusion just encourages me to stop contributing” …

First, do not stop to contribute! There is so much fun to map about everything 
in your neighbourhood, on thematic content (biking trails, national parks … and 
so on)!

Secondly, the annual report you cite could be used to define our road network 
with only a few road classes, since many people (including me) consider that 
OSM road classification sometime overkill (while there are little options to 
map some other topics!-)  …

The “problem” - which is actually the solution - is that people from around the 
world have decided to use OSM and mapped the world using another road 
classification schema for more than a decade. Furthermore, if OSM users start 
referring to their own national agencies to define the OSM content, it is just 
going to be worst!

The Canada:British Columbia guidelines page is very close to the classification 
that was discussed and agreed with the community 7-8 years ago when we were 
working on NRN schema to translate it into OSM definitions (not the contrary). 
It is just recently that some users started to retag the whole Canadian network 
according to their view, without consulting first the community (contrarily to 
what you did).

This tread is about clarifying the definitions and make them clear in the wiki, 
everywhere it may concern the Canada. So, I am getting back with the above 
definitions that are using both wiki’s definitions and current thread 
discussions:

Tag: highway=motorway to identify the highest-performance roads within a 
territory. Typically, these controlled-access highways have a minimum of two 
lanes in each direction that are separated by a barrier…

Tag: highway=trunk for high performance roads that don't meet the requirement 
for motorway. In Canada, these roads must have some of the controlled-access 
features found on a motorway.

Tag: highway=primary for major highway linking large towns … The traffic for 
both directions is usually not separated by a central barrier. In Canada, these 
roads usually have none of the controlled-access features found on trunk and 
motorway.

Again, hope it will help the discussion ☺
Daniel

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Paul Norman]

On 1/28/2016 10:31 AM, Ken Wuschke wrote:
So a suggestion to a definition for trunk routes in Canada could be a 
simple as:


*A highway=trunk is a roadway that is a part of the National
Highway System as defined by the Council of Ministers
Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety and is found
in annually updated document called **Canada’s National
Highway System Annual Report.*



I don't see that we should be depending on a government definition 
within OSM. Additionally, this would lead to unexpected results if you 
look at the feeder routes in the lower mainland.



___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Ken Wuschke]

Morning Daniel,

First, I really appreciated your comprehensive email. It provided me with a
lot of background on this topic.

As to my level of employment within the Ministry of Transportation and
Highways, I was on the operations end and dealt directly with the public.
Through this I quickly learnt and understood how the public perceives the
roading infrastructure in British Columbia. A perspective which can be
quite different from the engineering point of view. Hence I focus on
functionality of roads versus the design profile of a road. For the most
part the public does not care nor understand the difference between a
highway's cross section other than they can generally travel faster when
there is four lanes versus two lanes. Their focus is more about getting
places directly and quickly.

But I am going to step back from defining trunk routes in Canada for a
moment and focus on coming to OSM as a new person. Quite frankly the OSM
wiki is not clear nor well connected and it offers a lot of room for
improvement so that newcomers can learn what is the consensus based on
years of discussion. In the case of Canadian trunk status the wiki leaves a
lot to be desired.

1. On the highest level page *Tag:highway=trunk*
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk Canada is not
mentioned in the table called *International equivalence*. Nor is there a
link to be found to get a person to the Canadian definitions for OSM. When
comparing through the countries that are listed in the table it ranges from
design specs of a road profile (i.e. Vietnam) to it is based solely on does
the road in question have a route number (i.e. Hong Kong). For the Canadian
OSM volunteer this leaves a huge room for interpretation. Therefore,
regardless of what the OSM community consensus is for Canadian trunk route
standards by not having a definition on this page nor a link to a
definition the new OSM volunteer is floundering in the dark.

To make it easier, I feel the *International equivalence *table be
abandoned and simply a link to the *Highway:International equivalence* page
- http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence. As
OSM is mainly volunteers there is far less work in maintaining one table
then maintaining several tables.


2. On the *Canadian tagging guidelines* page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk has a
link to an unnamed document of the NHS inventory, however clicking on that
link simply takes the OSM volunteer to a blank page. Further there is no
mention that some provinces on the OSM wiki have further tagging
guidelines. I only learnt this through Paul Norman's email earlier in this
thread.

3. On the *Canada:British Columbia* guidelines page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads
trunk roads are defined differently from the Canadian standard. Instead of
using the National Highway System as defined by the Council of Ministers
defining a trunk road is more about whether or not it is a divided highway.
In addition, this page does not refer to the BC Ministry of Transportation
and Infrastructure's document *Overview of B.C. Highway Functional
Classification.*

As you can see there is a lot of confusion not just with the definition but
with how to access the information and how the guideline changes from a
provincial to a national guideline page on the OSM wiki. If you can make
suggestions on how to improve this situation I would welcome them.

To be frank this level of confusion just encourages me to stop contributing
to OSM. I can imagine there are more people out there like me. Life is too
short for this type of frustration, let alone on a volunteer level.

Getting back to the definition. I found this document by the BC Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure of great interest - *Overview of B.C.
Highway Functional Classification* /
https://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications/planning/Provincial%20Highways/BC_Numbered_Hwy_Functional_Classes.pdf
- In it discusses five levels of functionality class. While it does not
discuss trunk route, it does provide primary, secondary, major, minor, and
local roads. But then it tosses in something that could be subscribed to as
a trunk road:

*The “National Highway System” (NHS) is a subset of primary highways which
have been deemed to be of national importance, and therefore which have
higher expectations placed on them regarding mobility, reliability,
geometric standards and condition. *


This is very close to the OSM definition on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk -

*A highway=trunk is a roadway that has limited access and is part of the
national highway system, as defined by the Council of Ministers, an
intergovernmental agency with representatives from each province and
territory. Maintenance of these highways is under provincial jurisdiction.*


*The surface=* does not need to be paved, nor is it assumed to be paved. As
in 

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Ken Wuschke]

I still lean towards function over design as how to define a trunk road.

The present Tag: highway=trunk for high performance roads that don't meet
the requirement for motorway actually is inclusive of the function of the
highway.  All that is required is further the definition to clarify this
point.

For a moment I stepped out of OSM's definitions and took at look to
Wikipedia which says:

*"A trunk road, trunk highway, or strategic road is a major road, usually
connecting two or more cities, ports, airports and other places, which is
the recommended route for long-distance and freight traffic. Many trunk
roads have segregated lanes in a dual carriageway
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_carriageway>, or are of motorway
standard." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trunk_road>*

I note that this description is more about the purpose of the highway than
if it is 2-lanes or 4-lanes, has a dividing barrier, limited access
interchanges, etc.

While focusing on the design of a highway to determine if it should be a
trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary, or residential is far easier to define
over the function/purpose of highway it, IMO, misses the point of what a
map should be providing. Information to the user as how to
travel efficiency from point A to point B.

Turning to existing examples of provincial and state maps for guidance I
find these examples:


   - Alberta - http://bit.ly/1ZT3Sz0 - It shows the following three levels.
   (1) Freeways. (2) Paved provincial highways regardless as to the number of
   lanes. (3) Gravel surfaced highways.
   - Saskatchewan - http://bit.ly/1OPB7Ag - (1) Divided highways. (2) Paved
   provincial highways regardless as to the number of lanes. (3) Thin membrane
   surfaces - important for heavily load trucks. (4) Gravel surfaces.
   - Washington state - http://1.usa.gov/1KFy1uI - (1) Interstate. (2) Dual
   carriageway design state highways. (3) Undivided state highways. (4)
   County/local roads.

When I look at these I find them easy to understand the network between
destinations versus having design being the primary focus.

Therefore I'd like to suggest the follow definition for Tag: highway=trunk:

*high performance roads that don't meet the requirement for motorway design
standards and linking two or more cities, ports, airports and other places,
which is the recommended route for long-distance and freight traffic.*

There can be a further definition for clarity. For example, I would
classify Quebec Highway 133 - http://bit.ly/1RNQooL - which links Autoroute
35 to the United States and Interstate 89. However, Quebec Highway 133 does
not have any major destination along its route itself.

Looking forward to further discussion,
Ken



On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I am not sure about the conclusion at this point but in order to
> move forward, here are some definitions I would propose using *wiki’s
> definitions* and current tread discussions:
>
>
>
> Tag: highway=motorway to *identify the highest-performance roads within a
> territory. Typically, these controlled-access highways have a minimum of
> two lanes in each direction that are separated by a barrier*…
>
>
>
> Tag: highway=trunk for *high performance roads that don't meet the
> requirement for motorway*. In Canada, these roads must have some of the
> controlled-access features found on a motorway.
>
>
>
> Tag: highway=primary for *major highway linking large towns … The traffic
> for both directions is usually not separated by a central barrier*. In
> Canada, these roads usually have none of the controlled-access features
> found on trunk and motorway.
>
>
>
> Most of the confusion comes from the governmental pdf document, cited in
> the Canadian tagging guidelines (wiki), which uses definitions that do not
> correspond to those of OSM. Once most of us agree on a set of definitions,
> starting using the above, we should provide adjusted definitions in the
> wiki and remove the pdf document.
>
>
>
> Hope it will help
>
> Daniel
>
>
>
> *From:* Chandler Vancouver [mailto:chandler.vancou...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* January-26-16 16:49
> *To:* Stewart Russell
> *Cc:* talk-ca
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
>
>
>
> Completely agree, Stewart.
>
>
>
> Similarly I live just off a road I would consider to be a tertiary level
> road. It runs for only 4 km and links up residential side streets, a high
> school, an elementary school and a small scale commercial zone. It is only
> two lanes wide but for over 50% of its length has a centre boulevard or a
> centre dual left turn lane. As well, less than 25% of its length has
> residences that off it and none where you can park on the road itself.
>
>
>
> Where it 

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Ken Wuschke]

Hi Daniel,

I just took a look at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence and
the only difference between trunk and primary is the use of the *National
Highway System - Core Routes*. I actually find that document to be more
subjective then objective.

As far I as I can tell the *National Highway System - Core Routes *is
simply a document which the Federal government uses when distributing
funding to the provinces for the purpose of road improvements and
infrastructure development. I come to this conclusion as here in the Lower
Mainland of British Columbia there are four primary border crossings --
Peace Arch (BC 99), Pacific Highway (BC 15), Aldergrove (BC 13), and
Huntingdon-Abbotsford (BC 11). I can argue that three are actually trunk
roads on the following basis:


   - BC 99 is to motorway standards, therefore automatically defined
   as Tag:highway=motorway
   - Goods movement for import/export and therefore all three crossings are
   nationally important - 15, 13, & 11
   - High volume of motor vehicles on annual basis -  BC 15 = 2.5 million
   vehicles; BC 13 = 786,000 vehicles; BC 11 =  1.2 million vehicles
   - All three routes link the Trans-Canada Highway to important ports of
   entry and to Seattle when used with other routes such as Interstate 5. Both
   BC 15 and BC 13 can be argued connect Metro Vancouver two million persons
   to important destinations. Meanwhile BC 11 can be argued as linking Seattle
   to interior cities of Prince George, Kamloops, and Kelowna as well as
   Edmonton in Alberta.

IMO the most important difference between a trunk route and a primary route
is trunk route is under provincial or federal** jurisdiction and therefore
numbered, while a primary route is unnumbered urban arterial route.

I think my biggest issue is that OSM only allows for primary, secondary,
tertiary, and residential designations regardless if it is highway an
interurban route linking cities or an intra-urban street such as
Vancouver's 41st Avenue, Toronto's Yonge Street, or Montreal's Boulevard
René-Lévesque. All three of these urban examples can be classified as
primary just the same as BC 15, ON 6, or QC 157 as they have the same cross
section of four travel lanes. Yet the latter three have a different
function than the former three.

Here are links to Google's Streetview to show the six examples.

Vancouver's 41st Avenue > https://goo.gl/maps/EYx3j6eE93x

Toronto's Yonge Street > https://goo.gl/maps/b6zq2fzCGdN2

Montreal's Boulevard René-Lévesque > https://goo.gl/maps/7MSniiaQLU52

BC 15 > https://goo.gl/maps/Brnkj8YGpSo

ON 6 > https://goo.gl/maps/M4TmhDJXZRC2

QC 157 > https://goo.gl/maps/EL7ZTbXvm3z


Perhaps the easiest way is to have a clear definitions for both
Tag:highway=trunk
and Tag:highway=primary. Therefore I suggest the following:

*Tag:highway=trunk *--> A provincial and/or federal government highway that
has a route number assigned to it and has route shields posted as well as
any unnumbered routes that are listed in the National Highway System - Core
Routes.

*Tag:highway=primary* --> A road that has four or more lanes in width that
is not defined by either Tag:highway=trunk or Tag:highway=motorway.

Would this distinction between the two levels -- trunk and primary -- be
clear enough for everyone?

I know that there will still be some subjectivity on behalf of the
individual OSM contributor but it provides a more clear distinction on the
border between the two categories. Also some numbered routes that serve
small towns that at the end of the road can
be classified as Tag:highway=trunk, but I feel that is more appropriate
then classifying it as a secondary or tertiary level highway. If you lived,
in say Harrison Hot Springs, BC 9 *is* your trunk route to the rest of the
world.

---

***The Federal government has direct responsibility over all roads that go
through national parks and other federally controlled property. For
example, BC 1 in Mt Revelstoke, Glacier, and Yoho national parks is not
maintained by the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure but by
the Government of Canada's Parks Canada Agency. I used to work the BC
Ministry of Transportation and Highways and we had no jurisdiction over
these sections of highway.*
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Paul Norman]

On 1/26/2016 11:34 AM, Chandler Vancouver wrote:


To begin with I am relatively new to OSM but I am trying to figure the 
Canadian definition for trunk status and find the current definition 
as described on 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk 
as academic and not functional. And please forgive me if I covering 
previously discussed material. Also, my context might from British 
Columbia focus as well.


This conversation comes up from a discussion I have had with another 
OSM contributor, so I'm posting below my response to the definition as 
found at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads 
is a better description of how things are actually tagged in BC in OSM.


At least within the lower mainland and Fraser valley, the NHS is not 
used for tagging. My preferred examples of this are the new Highway 17, 
which didn't exist when the document was compiled, and some of the 
relatively small roads linking highways to ports.


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Chandler Vancouver]

Thanks Paul!

This is much closer to how I view trunk vs. primary highways. But how can
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ have one clear thread to users that this is
case. So far I found two, if not three, conflicting definitions for
highways in BC depending how you read through the wiki.

how can http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk
be modified to direct people to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads
?

Cheers,
Ken

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 1/26/2016 11:34 AM, Chandler Vancouver wrote:
>
>>
>> To begin with I am relatively new to OSM but I am trying to figure the
>> Canadian definition for trunk status and find the current definition as
>> described on
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk as
>> academic and not functional. And please forgive me if I covering previously
>> discussed material. Also, my context might from British Columbia focus as
>> well.
>>
>> This conversation comes up from a discussion I have had with another OSM
>> contributor, so I'm posting below my response to the definition as found at
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk
>>
>
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads
> is a better description of how things are actually tagged in BC in OSM.
>
> At least within the lower mainland and Fraser valley, the NHS is not used
> for tagging. My preferred examples of this are the new Highway 17, which
> didn't exist when the document was compiled, and some of the relatively
> small roads linking highways to ports.
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Stewart Russell]

A trunk road is not necessarily divided. The limited access part means that
it's not residential. It has to go from a town or city to another town or
city. It predates or has lesser capacity than a motorway.

It's one of these maddening "know one when I see one" definitions that
makes perfect sense in the UK but is difficult elsewhere.

Much of the Trans-Canada, f'rinstance, would be considered a trunk road.

Cheers
Stewart
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Chandler Vancouver]

Great points, Daniel. And thank you very much for providing the summary of
viewpoints. I found the online archive hard to follow.

When it comes to calling a route a trunk route I lean towards the
functionality of the route as opposed to the design qualities. Excepting
motorways, IMO trunk routes are about what is the purpose of the route with
the following values:

1) Linking significant cities and/or destinations.

2) Traffic volumes.

3) Suitability for goods movement.

The problem is these can be subjective and not objective.

Overall I lean towards J.P. Kirby's definition. This is because I look at
the end user's point of view for using a map. The vast majority is to find
the most efficient way of travelling from point A to point B taking the
route that has the highest speed limit with the highest number of
intersection where they have priority over the cross streets. It doesn't
matter if the road has two-lane or four-lanes. What matters is that the
cross streets have stop signs or have signalized traffic light giving the
trunk route priority over the cross street. This can include short linkages
of un-number highway routes.

Cheers,
Ken

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bonjour Chandler,
>
> You have just raised an issue that was discussed last summer on this list,
> without a final agreement (search for [Talk-ca] Highway recoding).
>
>
>
> I brought the issue because I found that the guideline proposes 3
> functional categories, in which one is called “trunk,” while I was on the
> impression that OSM definitions were more oriented toward the physical
> nature of the infrastructure (motorway, primary, residential, service, etc.)
>
>
>
> Summarizing the discussions …
>
> J.P. Kirby argued that functional categories better fits the spirit of the
> British classification system that OSM Highway tagging is based on.
>
> Tristan Anderson did not exactly agree with the functional definitions but
> he has been using them and he proposed to use a mix between functional and
> infrastructure descriptions.
>
> Paul Norman did not agree with the functional definition (trunk)
>
> Stewart C. Russell proposed a trunk definition oriented toward an
> infrastructure description.
>
> Adam Martin goes for Tristan definitions but suggest trunk could be
> applied to TransCanada Highway only.
>
>
>
> IMO, OSM classification mostly aims at describing the road infrastructure,
> not the strategic/economic importance a local government says about them. I
> am inclined to agree with Stewart’s proposal of trunk definition…
>
>
>
> “A road that link cities/towns with some access limitations and higher
> speed limit”
>
>
>
> The “some access limitations” proposed in his definition would make the
> distinction between a motorway (full access limitations) and primary roads
> (no access limitations) and it is actually pretty close to the BC
> definition Paul just sent you.
>
>
>
> Further comments?
>
> Daniel
>
> *From:* Chandler Vancouver [mailto:chandler.vancou...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* January-26-16 14:34
> *To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
>
>
>
> Hi everyone!
>
>
>
> To begin with I am relatively new to OSM but I am trying to figure the
> Canadian definition for trunk status and find the current definition as
> described on
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk as
> academic and not functional. And please forgive me if I covering previously
> discussed material. Also, my context might from British Columbia focus as
> well.
>
>
>
> This conversation comes up from a discussion I have had with another OSM
> contributor, so I'm posting below my response to the definition as found at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> Thank you for updating me as to the status of trunk roads. And I have
> begun correcting routes that are definitely not trunk roads.
>
> I think the concern I have is openstreetmap needs different layers
> depending on the end users purpose. For example, if the end user is using
> OSM for a GPS navigational unit the status of a trunk road based on the
> Council of Ministers criteria is irrelevant. For that matter, for most map
> users it is irrelevant. Most people using a map want to know essentially
> know where number designated highways are so they can travel most
> efficiently to their destination.
>
> However, there was/is precedence on OSM in the Lower Mainland region of BC
> of a trunk highway status on a route that is not covered by the Council of
> Ministers. Highway 7 (Lougheed Highway), west of the changeset you
> corrected, and High

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Chandler Vancouver]

Completely agree, Stewart.

Similarly I live just off a road I would consider to be a tertiary level
road. It runs for only 4 km and links up residential side streets, a high
school, an elementary school and a small scale commercial zone. It is only
two lanes wide but for over 50% of its length has a centre boulevard or a
centre dual left turn lane. As well, less than 25% of its length has
residences that off it and none where you can park on the road itself.

Where it meets four main crossroads the intersections are as follows:

Intersection A: full signal with priority given to the crossroad.

Intersection B: a four-way stop.

Intersection C: full signal with priority given to the road in question.

Intersection D: a stop sign with the crossroad given full priority over the
road in question.

In addition there is a walking trail that crosses with a pedestrian
activated signal but with an advanced warning signal as described at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads
under "trunk".

Driving the full length you would know it is a tertiary level route, yet I
can take photographs of the route that could lead you to believe it is a
trunk road.

---

Another example is SW Marine Drive between Camosun Street and the
University of British Columbia -
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255865854#map=15/49.2428/-123.2196 . It
is designed at the level described for trunk road at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads,
yet the OSM contributors have designated it as secondary highway.

I don't find this a "maddening" as you say, but then I feel we could adopt
a more UK approach to the definition then a infrastructure/design POV.



On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Stewart Russell  wrote:

> A trunk road is not necessarily divided. The limited access part means
> that it's not residential. It has to go from a town or city to another town
> or city. It predates or has lesser capacity than a motorway.
>
> It's one of these maddening "know one when I see one" definitions that
> makes perfect sense in the UK but is difficult elsewhere.
>
> Much of the Trans-Canada, f'rinstance, would be considered a trunk road.
>
> Cheers
> Stewart
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Ken Wuschke]

But there's one point on showing a route as a trunk route that I think is
important to considered. And this would be on a global level, not just for
Canada.

I use OSM on a Garmin Nuvi navigational system. If you are not familiar all
of the OSM maps can be downloaded for free for use on GPS navigational
units. Go to https://www.openmapchest.org/ to see how it is done.

The problem is if you are using the OSM map on a GPS unit to show your
surroundings it is hard to see provincial/state level highways on it. If a
numbered route is categorized as a highway
=tertiary
 then it gets
the same colour rendering for a collector street in an urban area. There is
no difference.

If all provincial numbered routes are designated as a trunk route then the
end user can quickly see this on their GPS unit and therefore can guide
their vehicle to this level of route easily.

I'll see if I can put up screenshot of my GPS unit showing this.
---

On the other hand, any road designated a private road shows up on a Garmin
in bright red over powering all other roads. I don't know how to change
this without re-desginating the private roads on OSM, but that would defeat
what OSM is trying to achieve.

Again, I am thinking of the end user of OSM.

Cheers,
Ken

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Chandler Vancouver <
chandler.vancou...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Completely agree, Stewart.
>
> Similarly I live just off a road I would consider to be a tertiary level
> road. It runs for only 4 km and links up residential side streets, a high
> school, an elementary school and a small scale commercial zone. It is only
> two lanes wide but for over 50% of its length has a centre boulevard or a
> centre dual left turn lane. As well, less than 25% of its length has
> residences that off it and none where you can park on the road itself.
>
> Where it meets four main crossroads the intersections are as follows:
>
> Intersection A: full signal with priority given to the crossroad.
>
> Intersection B: a four-way stop.
>
> Intersection C: full signal with priority given to the road in question.
>
> Intersection D: a stop sign with the crossroad given full priority over
> the road in question.
>
> In addition there is a walking trail that crosses with a pedestrian
> activated signal but with an advanced warning signal as described at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads
> under "trunk".
>
> Driving the full length you would know it is a tertiary level route, yet I
> can take photographs of the route that could lead you to believe it is a
> trunk road.
>
> ---
>
> Another example is SW Marine Drive between Camosun Street and the
> University of British Columbia -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/255865854#map=15/49.2428/-123.2196 . It
> is designed at the level described for trunk road at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads,
> yet the OSM contributors have designated it as secondary highway.
>
> I don't find this a "maddening" as you say, but then I feel we could
> adopt a more UK approach to the definition then a infrastructure/design POV.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Stewart Russell  wrote:
>
>> A trunk road is not necessarily divided. The limited access part means
>> that it's not residential. It has to go from a town or city to another town
>> or city. It predates or has lesser capacity than a motorway.
>>
>> It's one of these maddening "know one when I see one" definitions that
>> makes perfect sense in the UK but is difficult elsewhere.
>>
>> Much of the Trans-Canada, f'rinstance, would be considered a trunk road.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Stewart
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

I think we are evolving to a consensus that makes sense. 

I have received some examples that are quite right in QC context. For those who 
know the area, Route 175 up to Saguenay is obviously a “type 1” trunk road 
while Route 138 northeast from Quebec City isn't.

 

However, I hope everyone concerned will give their “two cents” because the 
context in Manitoba or in Yukon may be (is) quite different, and I do not want 
an Eastern centric solution on the subject :-)

 

Best regards,

DanielI 

From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: July-24-15 10:09
To: 'Adam Martin'; 'Tristan Anderson'
Cc: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

“… [TCH] is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at its most basic 
point, the central connection between major settlements …” 

 

Interesting… it is type 2 definition proposed by Tristan but without the 
concept of distance. IMHO, It highlights the fact that, depending on how you 
define central connection, major settlements, or distant population centres, 
you may ends up with the Britain situation – or even worst.  

 

Combining two very different objectives (types 1 and 2) in one definition leads 
to confusion. What about a rationale revolving around Type 1 definition but 
considering the TCH as a “special case” as suggested by Martin?

 

-  OSM road classes mostly aim toward Type 1 definition, so be it for 
trunks;

 

-  Since TCH could be consider as the only highway connecting most 
major population centres across the country, we could agree to tag it whether 
motorway or trunk depending on the infrastructure. There should then be no more 
confusion with this only one exception.

 

However, we could also manage all type 2 definitions, such as the ones 
described in document (a) with relation:route (b) but it is a bit more complex 
and less visual when looking at Mapnik. 

 

Other thoughts, comments?

 

Daniel

 

 

a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf

b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes

 

 

 

From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: July-24-15 07:08
To: Tristan Anderson
Cc: Daniel Begin; Stewart C. Russell; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems reasonable. Major 
Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, I find. Type 1 trunks rely 
on restricted access and the main highways in cities are generally limited in 
this manner. Likewise, these restrictions lift, in a sense, outside the city 
where they switch to connecting major settlements together (Type 2).

That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway is 
automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic point, the 
central connection between major settlements, especially across provincial 
borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH to go to other major 
settlements would need to be at the same class as the TCH, if they are 
multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. Or are we to designate them 
down a classification and leave Trunk for the TCH alone?

 

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson andersontris...@hotmail.com 
wrote:

So it seems like we're coming to some agreement.  The current Canadian 
definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with something else 
that is consistent with the rest of the world.  Once we find this new 
definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated.

I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how trunk 
tags are used.  Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but I think I can 
hammer out a more specific description.  There are two types of roads with are 
both usually tagged highway=trunk:


(1) Limited access highways.  This is a physical description for a road that 
has some of the characteristics of a motorway.  They are often dual 
carriageways of fairly high speed.

(2) Highways connecting distant population centres.  This is a functional 
description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks travelling long 
distances or between major cities.  Although usually two lanes, in more remote 
areas these roads may have very light traffic, be unpaved, or be slow.

In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern United States, 
all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance travel is generally done on 
their dense networks of motorways.

Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in much of the 
developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because type (1) doesn't exist.

The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is Britain 
(actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace of the trunk.  The 
designation there is used quite liberally, including even short roads 
connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's city streets.  Just look 
at England

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Frank Steggink]

Hi Daniel,

Actually, the part between Quebec City and Beaupré of Route 138 should 
still be tagged as a trunk. Beaupré is not a large population centre, 
but the layout of the road is almost that of a motorway. Except that 
there are traffic lights instead of interchanges.


Regards,

Frank

On 25-7-2015 19:10, Daniel Begin wrote:


I think we are evolving to a consensus that makes sense.

I have received some examples that are quite right in QC context. For 
those who know the area, Route 175 up to Saguenay is obviously a “type 
1” trunk road while Route 138 northeast from Quebec City isn't.


However, I hope everyone concerned will give their “two cents” because 
the context in Manitoba or in Yukon may be (is) quite different, and I 
do not want an Eastern centric solution on the subject :-)


Best regards,

DanielI

*From:*Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com]
*Sent:* July-24-15 10:09
*To:* 'Adam Martin'; 'Tristan Anderson'
*Cc:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

“… [TCH] is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at its most 
basic point, the central connection between major settlements …”


Interesting… it is type 2 definition proposed by Tristan but without 
the concept of distance. IMHO, It highlights the fact that, depending 
on how you define central connection, major settlements, or distant 
population centres, you may ends up with the Britain situation – or 
even worst.


Combining two very different objectives (types 1 and 2) in one 
definition leads to confusion. What about a rationale revolving around 
Type 1 definition but considering the TCH as a “special case” as 
suggested by Martin?


-OSM road classes mostly aim toward Type 1 definition, so be it for 
trunks;


-Since TCH could be consider as the only highway connecting most major 
population centres across the country, we could agree to tag it 
whether motorway or trunk depending on the infrastructure. There 
should then be no more confusion with this only one exception.


However, we could also manage all type 2 definitions, such as the ones 
described in document (a) with relation:route (b) but it is a bit more 
complex and less visual when looking at Mapnik.


Other thoughts, comments?

Daniel

a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf

b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes

*From:*Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* July-24-15 07:08
*To:* Tristan Anderson
*Cc:* Daniel Begin; Stewart C. Russell; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org 
mailto:talk-ca@openstreetmap.org

*Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems 
reasonable. Major Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, 
I find. Type 1 trunks rely on restricted access and the main highways 
in cities are generally limited in this manner. Likewise, these 
restrictions lift, in a sense, outside the city where they switch to 
connecting major settlements together (Type 2).


That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway 
is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic 
point, the central connection between major settlements, especially 
across provincial borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH 
to go to other major settlements would need to be at the same class as 
the TCH, if they are multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. 
Or are we to designate them down a classification and leave Trunk for 
the TCH alone?


On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson 
andersontris...@hotmail.com mailto:andersontris...@hotmail.com wrote:


So it seems like we're coming to some agreement.  The current Canadian 
definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with 
something else that is consistent with the rest of the world.  Once we 
find this new definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated.


I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how 
trunk tags are used.  Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but 
I think I can hammer out a more specific description.  There are two 
types of roads with are both usually tagged highway=trunk:



(1) Limited access highways.  This is a physical description for a 
road that has some of the characteristics of a motorway.  They are 
often dual carriageways of fairly high speed.


(2) Highways connecting distant population centres.  This is a 
functional description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks 
travelling long distances or between major cities.  Although usually 
two lanes, in more remote areas these roads may have very light 
traffic, be unpaved, or be slow.


In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern 
United States, all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance 
travel is generally done on their dense networks of motorways.


Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in 
much of the developing world, all trunk roads

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Adam Martin]

Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems reasonable.
Major Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, I find. Type 1
trunks rely on restricted access and the main highways in cities are
generally limited in this manner. Likewise, these restrictions lift, in a
sense, outside the city where they switch to connecting major settlements
together (Type 2).

That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway is
automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic point, the
central connection between major settlements, especially across provincial
borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH to go to other major
settlements would need to be at the same class as the TCH, if they are
multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. Or are we to designate
them down a classification and leave Trunk for the TCH alone?

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson 
andersontris...@hotmail.com wrote:

  So it seems like we're coming to some agreement.  The current Canadian
 definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with something
 else that is consistent with the rest of the world.  Once we find this new
 definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated.

 I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how
 trunk tags are used.  Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but I
 think I can hammer out a more specific description.  There are two types of
 roads with are both usually tagged highway=trunk:

 (1) Limited access highways.  This is a physical description for a road
 that has some of the characteristics of a motorway.  They are often dual
 carriageways of fairly high speed.

 (2) Highways connecting distant population centres.  This is a functional
 description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks travelling long
 distances or between major cities.  Although usually two lanes, in more
 remote areas these roads may have very light traffic, be unpaved, or be
 slow.

 In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern United
 States, all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance travel is
 generally done on their dense networks of motorways.

 Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in much
 of the developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because type (1)
 doesn't exist.

 The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is Britain
 (actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace of the trunk.
 The designation there is used quite liberally, including even short roads
 connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's city streets.  Just
 look at England at zoom level 5 and observe how unusually green it is.

 I suggest using the international model, with types (1) and (2) above
 being tagged as trunks in Canada.  This won't change much as it largely
 coincides with how roads are already tagged.  The wiki pages can be updated
 accordingly then we can look at specific roads in BC and Québec!

 Any objections?



  From: jfd...@hotmail.com
  To: scr...@gmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0400
  Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
 
  Thank Russel,
  Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about trunks)
 before I found the Canadian definition was referring to the mentioned
 document.
 
  Cheers,
 
  Daniel
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com]
  Sent: July-23-15 08:44
  To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
 
  The definition of ‘trunk’ is a difficult one, if based on the UK
 understanding. Like its unwritten constitution, trunk roads in the UK are
 more on a know it when I see it basis.
 
  Pretty much the only definitions I can think of that would be generally
 applicable are:
 
  * a trunk road goes from one city/town to another.
 
  * no parking at the side of the road.
 
  * something above the urban speed limit applies (though there are often
 nasty brief exceptions, like a roughly 200m stretch of 30 mph that used to
 adorn the A80, dammit).
 
  A trunk road isn't always dual carriageway. It can have traffic lights,
 roundabouts or (rare, in the UK) stop signs. Depending on its age, it may
 bypass towns and villages. Older trunk roads may also have all the usual
 roads entering it, while newer ones are likely to have on-ramps.
 
  In summary, the UK definition is so riddled with unwritten exceptions
 that trying to apply it rigorously in even one province in Canada will be
 frustrating. And no matter what you do, you'll always get some rogue user
 that comes along and adds their own tagging. It's a sair fecht …
 
  cheers,
  Stewart
 
  ___
  Talk-ca mailing list
  Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
 
 
  ___
  Talk-ca mailing list
  Talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

“… [TCH] is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at its most basic 
point, the central connection between major settlements …” 

 

Interesting… it is type 2 definition proposed by Tristan but without the 
concept of distance. IMHO, It highlights the fact that, depending on how you 
define central connection, major settlements, or distant population centres, 
you may ends up with the Britain situation – or even worst.  

 

Combining two very different objectives (types 1 and 2) in one definition leads 
to confusion. What about a rationale revolving around Type 1 definition but 
considering the TCH as a “special case” as suggested by Martin?

 

-  OSM road classes mostly aim toward Type 1 definition, so be it for 
trunks;

 

-  Since TCH could be consider as the only highway connecting most 
major population centres across the country, we could agree to tag it whether 
motorway or trunk depending on the infrastructure. There should then be no more 
confusion with this only one exception.

 

However, we could also manage all type 2 definitions, such as the ones 
described in document (a) with relation:route (b) but it is a bit more complex 
and less visual when looking at Mapnik. 

 

Other thoughts, comments?

 

Daniel

 

 

a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf

b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes

 

 

 

From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com] 
Sent: July-24-15 07:08
To: Tristan Anderson
Cc: Daniel Begin; Stewart C. Russell; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems reasonable. Major 
Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, I find. Type 1 trunks rely 
on restricted access and the main highways in cities are generally limited in 
this manner. Likewise, these restrictions lift, in a sense, outside the city 
where they switch to connecting major settlements together (Type 2).

That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway is 
automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic point, the 
central connection between major settlements, especially across provincial 
borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH to go to other major 
settlements would need to be at the same class as the TCH, if they are 
multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. Or are we to designate them 
down a classification and leave Trunk for the TCH alone?

 

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson andersontris...@hotmail.com 
wrote:

So it seems like we're coming to some agreement.  The current Canadian 
definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with something else 
that is consistent with the rest of the world.  Once we find this new 
definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated.

I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how trunk 
tags are used.  Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but I think I can 
hammer out a more specific description.  There are two types of roads with are 
both usually tagged highway=trunk:


(1) Limited access highways.  This is a physical description for a road that 
has some of the characteristics of a motorway.  They are often dual 
carriageways of fairly high speed.

(2) Highways connecting distant population centres.  This is a functional 
description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks travelling long 
distances or between major cities.  Although usually two lanes, in more remote 
areas these roads may have very light traffic, be unpaved, or be slow.

In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern United States, 
all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance travel is generally done on 
their dense networks of motorways.

Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in much of the 
developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because type (1) doesn't exist.

The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is Britain 
(actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace of the trunk.  The 
designation there is used quite liberally, including even short roads 
connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's city streets.  Just look 
at England at zoom level 5 and observe how unusually green it is.

I suggest using the international model, with types (1) and (2) above being 
tagged as trunks in Canada.  This won't change much as it largely coincides 
with how roads are already tagged.  The wiki pages can be updated accordingly 
then we can look at specific roads in BC and Québec!

Any objections?




 From: jfd...@hotmail.com
 To: scr...@gmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
 
 Thank Russel,
 Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about trunks) 
 before I found the Canadian definition was referring to the mentioned

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

Any objections? Of course not!

Your overview of the situation worldwide is pretty exhaustive, and is in
line with most comments, consideration, that were expressed so far.

 

However, as I suggested in an earlier email, I would keep the topic alive
for a couple of weeks, just to make sure everyone that may feel concerned
about the subject have a chance to comment (since it is summer time).

 

Unless there are backlashes from some contributors, I propose to keep
everything as is until the end of august and then move forward to update
definitions and data. 

 

Does everyone comfortable with it?

 

Daniel

From: Tristan Anderson [mailto:andersontris...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: July-23-15 17:18
To: Daniel Begin; 'Stewart C. Russell'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

So it seems like we're coming to some agreement.  The current Canadian
definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with something
else that is consistent with the rest of the world.  Once we find this new
definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated.

I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how trunk
tags are used.  Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but I think I
can hammer out a more specific description.  There are two types of roads
with are both usually tagged highway=trunk:


(1) Limited access highways.  This is a physical description for a road that
has some of the characteristics of a motorway.  They are often dual
carriageways of fairly high speed.

(2) Highways connecting distant population centres.  This is a functional
description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks travelling long
distances or between major cities.  Although usually two lanes, in more
remote areas these roads may have very light traffic, be unpaved, or be
slow.

In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern United
States, all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance travel is
generally done on their dense networks of motorways.

Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in much of
the developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because type (1) doesn't
exist.

The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is Britain
(actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace of the trunk.
The designation there is used quite liberally, including even short roads
connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's city streets.  Just
look at England at zoom level 5 and observe how unusually green it is.

I suggest using the international model, with types (1) and (2) above
being tagged as trunks in Canada.  This won't change much as it largely
coincides with how roads are already tagged.  The wiki pages can be updated
accordingly then we can look at specific roads in BC and Québec!

Any objections?




 From: jfd...@hotmail.com
 To: scr...@gmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0400
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
 
 Thank Russel,
 Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about trunks)
before I found the Canadian definition was referring to the mentioned
document.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Daniel 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: July-23-15 08:44
 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
 
 The definition of ‘trunk’ is a difficult one, if based on the UK
understanding. Like its unwritten constitution, trunk roads in the UK are
more on a know it when I see it basis.
 
 Pretty much the only definitions I can think of that would be generally
applicable are:
 
 * a trunk road goes from one city/town to another.
 
 * no parking at the side of the road.
 
 * something above the urban speed limit applies (though there are often
nasty brief exceptions, like a roughly 200m stretch of 30 mph that used to
adorn the A80, dammit).
 
 A trunk road isn't always dual carriageway. It can have traffic lights,
roundabouts or (rare, in the UK) stop signs. Depending on its age, it may
bypass towns and villages. Older trunk roads may also have all the usual
roads entering it, while newer ones are likely to have on-ramps.
 
 In summary, the UK definition is so riddled with unwritten exceptions that
trying to apply it rigorously in even one province in Canada will be
frustrating. And no matter what you do, you'll always get some rogue user
that comes along and adds their own tagging. It's a sair fecht …
 
 cheers,
 Stewart
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
 
 
 ___
 Talk-ca mailing list
 Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

~~ Un résumé français suit ~~

 

Bonjour all,

 

The few comments we got so far show that most of us, but not all, are 
uncomfortable with the “strategic” approach causing inconsistent descriptions 
of actual road “object” within Canada and between CA/US borders.

 

Since it is summer, I will keep the discussion alive for a while to make sure 
all interested people made their point.  Join the conversation whenever you 
want :-)

 

We are waiting for more comments…

 

Daniel

 

Ps:  comments received off-list will stay off-list – Please join the actual 
conversation J

 

 



En résumé, je questionne la façon d’attribuer le tag ‘trunk’ aux routes 
principales tel que proposé dans un document gouvernemental (a) cité dans le 
wiki (c) et propose de clarifier la  documentation une fois un consensus obtenu.

Les commentaires reçu à date vont pour la plupart (mais pas tous) dans le sens 
qu’une définition de type ‘’stratégique’’ (une route est importante pour 
l’économie d’une région) produit des résultats inconsistants par rapport à la 
perception qu’offre la carte par rapport aux  ‘’infrastructures’’ qui  la 
supporte (les routes ‘’trunk’’ à Toronto, sur la Côte-Nord ou au Yukon sont 
très différentes les unes des autres alors que les autres classes de routes 
sont similaires à la grandeur du pays) – bref la description ‘’physique’’ 
serait plus appropriée.

 

Vos commentaires sont bienvenus

 

a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf

b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence

c) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines

 

 

From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: July-22-15 16:44
To: 'Paul Norman'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

Bonjour Paul,

You actually highlight what makes me uncomfortable with the “strategic” 
approach applied in many part of Canada.  You are concerned about the road 
network in BC; I am concerned about the network in QC. Until few months ago, 
there were no trunk here; they are now everywhere.

 

IMO, OSM classification mostly aims at describing the road infrastructures, not 
the strategic/economic importance a local government says about them (almost 
quoted you!-). I understand that Tristan has similar concerns about the 
consequences of such approach in road classification; even if he suggested that 
the current definitions (using strategic approach) are good guidelines (but 
need not be followed religiously).  

 

Other comments on the subject

 

Daniel

 

From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Sent: July-22-15 15:59
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

On 7/22/2015 11:43 AM, Daniel Begin wrote:

So far, I understand we have 2.5 votes for tagging trunk/motorway all roads 
identified as “core route” in document (a); 0.5 against (I am still torn 
between the two approaches!-)

More comments would be appreciated 

Such an approach would be inconsistent with how highways are tagged in BC and 
expectations of locals. It would also make BC quite different than across the 
boarder in Washington.

I can think of several motorways and trunk roads which are not on the list in 
the PDF, and many of the roads on the list are primary, or in at least one 
case, secondary. Some of the roads not on the list are more important in the 
transportation network than ones on it.

The criteria being proposed are also inherently unverifiable. We map the world, 
not what a government database says.

What about new roads? There's a new route that's opened up, and it's a mix of 
trunk and motorway, but it's not listed in the NHS report. To tag it primary 
when less significant roads constructed to a lower standard are tagged as trunk 
and motorway would be absurd.

Because it has a lot of freight, it probably will become a NHS road at some 
point. Does its classification magically change when nothing has changed on the 
ground?

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Stewart C. Russell]

The definition of ‘trunk’ is a difficult one, if based on the UK
understanding. Like its unwritten constitution, trunk roads in the UK
are more on a know it when I see it basis.

Pretty much the only definitions I can think of that would be generally
applicable are:

* a trunk road goes from one city/town to another.

* no parking at the side of the road.

* something above the urban speed limit applies (though there are often
nasty brief exceptions, like a roughly 200m stretch of 30 mph that used
to adorn the A80, dammit).

A trunk road isn't always dual carriageway. It can have traffic lights,
roundabouts or (rare, in the UK) stop signs. Depending on its age, it
may bypass towns and villages. Older trunk roads may also have all the
usual roads entering it, while newer ones are likely to have on-ramps.

In summary, the UK definition is so riddled with unwritten exceptions
that trying to apply it rigorously in even one province in Canada will
be frustrating. And no matter what you do, you'll always get some rogue
user that comes along and adds their own tagging. It's a sair fecht …

cheers,
 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

Thank Russel,
Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about trunks) before 
I found the Canadian definition was referring to the mentioned document.

Cheers,

Daniel 

-Original Message-
From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com] 
Sent: July-23-15 08:44
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

The definition of ‘trunk’ is a difficult one, if based on the UK understanding. 
Like its unwritten constitution, trunk roads in the UK are more on a know it 
when I see it basis.

Pretty much the only definitions I can think of that would be generally 
applicable are:

* a trunk road goes from one city/town to another.

* no parking at the side of the road.

* something above the urban speed limit applies (though there are often nasty 
brief exceptions, like a roughly 200m stretch of 30 mph that used to adorn the 
A80, dammit).

A trunk road isn't always dual carriageway. It can have traffic lights, 
roundabouts or (rare, in the UK) stop signs. Depending on its age, it may 
bypass towns and villages. Older trunk roads may also have all the usual roads 
entering it, while newer ones are likely to have on-ramps.

In summary, the UK definition is so riddled with unwritten exceptions that 
trying to apply it rigorously in even one province in Canada will be 
frustrating. And no matter what you do, you'll always get some rogue user that 
comes along and adds their own tagging. It's a sair fecht …

cheers,
 Stewart

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[J.P. Kirby]

On 2015-07-22, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Begin jfd...@hotmail.com wrote:
 Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary 
 roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c). 
 IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core, 
 Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions.
  
 I prefer looking at OSM highway as “infrastructure categories” –my 
 understanding of OSM definitions– rather than as “strategic categories” as 
 described in (a) and partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest 
 as long they are applied consistently (d).

In my opinion, the strategic category approach better fits the spirit of the 
British classification system that OSM highway tagging is based on. There is no 
regard whatsoever for access control there - I think there are even some 
controlled access secondary roads. 

It's the approach I've been using for my tagging in the Maritimes. I (and 
apparently others) have been using that National Highway System map to define 
trunk roads in the absence of any other Canadian equivalent to the British 
trunk system.

Just my 2 cents….
JPK___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

Thank Tristan for your suggestions concerning the documentation. 

 

I agree that there's so much that needs to be added to the map that I don't
see tinkering with highway classifications as a priority. That is why
clarifying definition is necessary since some users are currently tinkering
with trunk/primary tagging. 

 

I am not comfortable with using the strategic categories approach for
trunk since it implies we will find very different road types when looking
at them around Toronto or in Yukon, while all lower classes will probably
look very similar wherever you are. Contrarily to JPK, I did not find any
strong relationship between UK strategic road classification (e) and OSM
(f). However, the important point is to agree on the definitions and have
them clearly state in the wiki. 

 

So far, I understand we have 2.5 votes for tagging trunk/motorway all roads
identified as core route in document (a); 0.5 against (I am still torn
between the two approaches!-)

More comments would be appreciated 

 

Daniel

 

a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf

e)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31
5783/road-classification-guidance.pdf

f) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway

 

 

From: Tristan Anderson [mailto:andersontris...@hotmail.com] 
Sent: July-22-15 13:17
To: Daniel Begin; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

As I've always understood it, highway=trunk is used for core routes in
document (a) that Daniel mentioned.  It ignores routes marked as feeder and
northern/remote.  highway=primary is for each province's network of primary
highways that aren't motorways or trunks.

 

I don't exactly agree with the above definitions but they were already in
place when I got here so I've been using them.  For one thing, document (a)
was published in 2005, and things change.  I'm also not entirely comfortable
with the fact that the most a city-maintained road could ever hope for is
secondary.  Toronto's Black Creek Drive should, in my mind at least, have a
higher classification than Highway 108 north of Elliot Lake.  In general,
OSM higways should be based on how important they are to the overall road
network, independent of any official classification.

 

On the other hand...  I kinda like the way Canadian cities look with their
simple networks of orange thoroughfares.  London, Paris and Washington are
an incomprehensible mess of roads with varying classifications which don't
seem to be of benefit to the end user.  The eight-level hierarchy of highway
classifications OSM gives us to work with is overkill.  At least Canada is
consistent, which is more than can be said for a lot of countries.  Plus
there's so much that needs to be added to the map that I don't see tinkering
with highway classifications as a priority.

 

So here's what I suggest: the definitions above are good guidelines but need
not be followed religiously.  If anyone thinks a specific road should be
promoted or demoted, let's discuss it here and make it happen.

 

As for the wiki pages.  In (b), Canada is listed twice.  I think the entire
lower row can be deleted and the upper row still stands.  Maybe a note could
be added saying there is some flexibility to the trunk/primary guidelines.

 

In (c), the section on trunk roads should be changed.  Trunk roads do not
need to be limited access.  Most of them are not.  I also don't think people
should be told to tag anything surface=paved/unpaved.  Instead surface
should be whatever it is (asphalt, concrete, gravel, etc).  The
Sub-national and below section needs to be rewritten or copied over from
(b).

 

And now you have my two cents too.  Comments?

 

  _  

From: jfd...@hotmail.com
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:39:28 -0400
Subject: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

I would like to have community's point of view on this topic.

 

Recently I have seen most primary roads in my area being recoded as trunk by
at least two users.  They both refer to a governmental document (a) to
justify their edits but I disagree with their interpretation. I have asked
them to discuss their interpretation with the OSM community but they did
not; so let's do it

 

I thought there was an agreement on highway tagging scheme in which
provincial primary highway that does not meet freeway standards should be
identified as primary road, as described in Highway:International
equivalence (b). For instance provincial highways 2-14 in Ontario,
100-series highways in Quebec, Highway 95 in BC were initially tagged as
primary road.

 

Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary
roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c).
IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories
(Core, Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway
definitions. 

 

I prefer looking at OSM highway as infrastructure categories -my

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Tristan Anderson]

As I've always understood it, highway=trunk is used for core routes in document 
(a) that Daniel mentioned.  It ignores routes marked as feeder and 
northern/remote.  highway=primary is for each province's network of primary 
highways that aren't motorways or trunks.
I don't exactly agree with the above definitions but they were already in place 
when I got here so I've been using them.  For one thing, document (a) was 
published in 2005, and things change.  I'm also not entirely comfortable with 
the fact that the most a city-maintained road could ever hope for is secondary. 
 Toronto's Black Creek Drive should, in my mind at least, have a higher 
classification than Highway 108 north of Elliot Lake.  In general, OSM higways 
should be based on how important they are to the overall road network, 
independent of any official classification.
On the other hand...  I kinda like the way Canadian cities look with their 
simple networks of orange thoroughfares.  London, Paris and Washington are an 
incomprehensible mess of roads with varying classifications which don't seem to 
be of benefit to the end user.  The eight-level hierarchy of highway 
classifications OSM gives us to work with is overkill.  At least Canada is 
consistent, which is more than can be said for a lot of countries.  Plus 
there's so much that needs to be added to the map that I don't see tinkering 
with highway classifications as a priority.
So here's what I suggest: the definitions above are good guidelines but need 
not be followed religiously.  If anyone thinks a specific road should be 
promoted or demoted, let's discuss it here and make it happen.
As for the wiki pages.  In (b), Canada is listed twice.  I think the entire 
lower row can be deleted and the upper row still stands.  Maybe a note could be 
added saying there is some flexibility to the trunk/primary guidelines.
In (c), the section on trunk roads should be changed.  Trunk roads do not need 
to be limited access.  Most of them are not.  I also don't think people should 
be told to tag anything surface=paved/unpaved.  Instead surface should be 
whatever it is (asphalt, concrete, gravel, etc).  The Sub-national and below 
section needs to be rewritten or copied over from (b).

And now you have my two cents too.  Comments?
From: jfd...@hotmail.com
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:39:28 -0400
Subject: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

I would like to have community’s point of view on this topic… Recently I have 
seen most primary roads in my area being recoded as trunk by at least two 
users.  They both refer to a governmental document (a) to justify their edits 
but I disagree with their interpretation. I have asked them to discuss their 
interpretation with the OSM community but they did not; so let’s do it I 
thought there was an agreement on highway tagging scheme in which provincial 
primary highway that does not meet freeway standards should be identified as 
primary road, as described in Highway:International equivalence (b). For 
instance provincial highways 2-14 in Ontario, 100-series highways in Quebec, 
Highway 95 in BC were initially tagged as primary road. Since then, the 
document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary roads to trunk 
because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c). IMHO, the problem is 
that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core, Feeder, Northern and 
Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions.  I prefer looking at 
OSM highway as “infrastructure categories” –my understanding of OSM 
definitions– rather than as “strategic categories” as described in (a) and 
partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest as long they are 
applied consistently (d). I would like to get a consensus from the Canadian 
community on trunk/primary roads tagging scheme and eventually clarify 
available documentation (b, c) accordingly.  I might also add Tristan Anderson 
definitions on forestry roads (talk-ca 15-07-15). Comments are obviously 
welcome J Daniel  a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdfb) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalencec) 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelinesd) The Canadian 
tagging guideline defines trunk as a roadway that has limited access; while OSM 
Features (wiki) defines trunk as “high performance roads that don't meet the 
requirement for motorway” which means there is no/little access limitations!
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
  ___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Paul Norman]

On 7/22/2015 11:43 AM, Daniel Begin wrote:


So far, I understand we have 2.5 votes for tagging trunk/motorway all 
roads identified as “core route” in document (a); 0.5 against (I am 
still torn between the two approaches!-)


More comments would be appreciated

Such an approach would be inconsistent with how highways are tagged in 
BC and expectations of locals. It would also make BC quite different 
than across the boarder in Washington.


I can think of several motorways and trunk roads which are not on the 
list in the PDF, and many of the roads on the list are primary, or in at 
least one case, secondary. Some of the roads not on the list are more 
important in the transportation network than ones on it.


The criteria being proposed are also inherently unverifiable. We map the 
world, not what a government database says.


What about new roads? There's a new route that's opened up, and it's a 
mix of trunk and motorway, but it's not listed in the NHS report. To tag 
it primary when less significant roads constructed to a lower standard 
are tagged as trunk and motorway would be absurd.


Because it has a lot of freight, it probably will become a NHS road at 
some point. Does its classification magically change when nothing has 
changed on the ground?
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

I would like to have community's point of view on this topic.

 

Recently I have seen most primary roads in my area being recoded as trunk by
at least two users.  They both refer to a governmental document (a) to
justify their edits but I disagree with their interpretation. I have asked
them to discuss their interpretation with the OSM community but they did
not; so let's do it

 

I thought there was an agreement on highway tagging scheme in which
provincial primary highway that does not meet freeway standards should be
identified as primary road, as described in Highway:International
equivalence (b). For instance provincial highways 2-14 in Ontario,
100-series highways in Quebec, Highway 95 in BC were initially tagged as
primary road.

 

Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary
roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c).
IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories
(Core, Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway
definitions. 

 

I prefer looking at OSM highway as infrastructure categories -my
understanding of OSM definitions- rather than as strategic categories as
described in (a) and partially promoted in (c). However, both are of
interest as long they are applied consistently (d).

 

I would like to get a consensus from the Canadian community on trunk/primary
roads tagging scheme and eventually clarify available documentation (b, c)
accordingly.  I might also add Tristan Anderson definitions on forestry
roads (talk-ca 15-07-15).

 

Comments are obviously welcome J

 

Daniel

 

 

a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf

b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence

c) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines

d) The Canadian tagging guideline defines trunk as a roadway that has
limited access; while OSM Features (wiki) defines trunk as high performance
roads that don't meet the requirement for motorway which means there is
no/little access limitations!  

 

 

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

[Daniel Begin]

Bonjour Paul,

You actually highlight what makes me uncomfortable with the “strategic” 
approach applied in many part of Canada.  You are concerned about the road 
network in BC; I am concerned about the network in QC. Until few months ago, 
there were no trunk here; they are now everywhere.

 

IMO, OSM classification mostly aims at describing the road infrastructures, not 
the strategic/economic importance a local government says about them (almost 
quoted you!-). I understand that Tristan has similar concerns about the 
consequences of such approach in road classification; even if he suggested that 
the current definitions (using strategic approach) are good guidelines (but 
need not be followed religiously).  

 

Other comments on the subject

 

Daniel

 

From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] 
Sent: July-22-15 15:59
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding

 

On 7/22/2015 11:43 AM, Daniel Begin wrote:



So far, I understand we have 2.5 votes for tagging trunk/motorway all roads 
identified as “core route” in document (a); 0.5 against (I am still torn 
between the two approaches!-)

More comments would be appreciated 

Such an approach would be inconsistent with how highways are tagged in BC and 
expectations of locals. It would also make BC quite different than across the 
boarder in Washington.

I can think of several motorways and trunk roads which are not on the list in 
the PDF, and many of the roads on the list are primary, or in at least one 
case, secondary. Some of the roads not on the list are more important in the 
transportation network than ones on it.

The criteria being proposed are also inherently unverifiable. We map the world, 
not what a government database says.

What about new roads? There's a new route that's opened up, and it's a mix of 
trunk and motorway, but it's not listed in the NHS report. To tag it primary 
when less significant roads constructed to a lower standard are tagged as trunk 
and motorway would be absurd.

Because it has a lot of freight, it probably will become a NHS road at some 
point. Does its classification magically change when nothing has changed on the 
ground?

___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca