Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
Hi everybody, I use a similar approach to Eugene. Smallest roads = unclassified if industrial or with few houses, residential if the area is, well, residential... Biggest roads and main links crossing the city = primary The others secondary or tertiairy. Trunc roads should be reserved for motorways with separated lanes without intersections/traffic lights in my opinion. I use service roads inside parking lots or private terrains. I mix this occasionnaly with a traffic based approach, downgrading primary roads or upgrading lower classes because of traffic importance. Examples: If road classification is based on size and road condition only, countryside roads should be tracks only. But in Palawan I tagged the often unpaved road from PP to El Nido as primary (but with sections marked as unpaved) http://osm.org/go/4nXgnt-- Printed maps also show this as main roads, and not as dirt tracks. If road classification is based on traffic importance, N Escario street in Cebu should be primary (there is nearly as many traffic on this shortcut as on Reyes avenue) Based on road size,one section of N Escario is a narrow unclassified road. Worse, it has a one way section, where the neighbouring residential roads handle all the traffic (jams) in the opposite direction. I mapped it as secondary, since there were already some roads with that class. But now a unclassified road with heavy traffic, has the same importance on the map, as the often nearly empty 2x3 lanes around the Ayala mall. I'll probably revisit the area, and downgrade it to tertiairy one of these days. http://osm.org/go/4tRG27AiN- A good thing this is discussed, clear rules and examples are needed, specially for beginners. Regards, Totor --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > From: Eugene Alvin Villar > Subject: Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types > To: "maning sambale" > Cc: "osm-ph" > Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 3:39 PM > Here's my interpretation: unclassified > and residential are the lowest-importance general roads. > These two form the lowest level (above the service-type > roads) and residential is used for roads within residential > areas like subdivisions. Then in terms of increasing > importance, roads go from tertiary, secondary, primary to > trunk. trunk roads form the highest level of a road network. > motorways are trunk roads that have special features > (limited entrances, high-speed, often has toll fees, etc.). > > > think of it like te circulatory system. trunk/motorway > roads are the largest arteries and veins while > unclassified/residential are the capillaries. > > hope this helps. > > [...] > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: > > > > > > I suggest that the tags for > highway=trunk,primary,secondary,tertiary,unclassified be > considered as a function of traffic patterns and not of DOTC > designation nor physical appearance or condition. > > > > > > These values should also be considered relative to > local traffic patterns. This means that levels will be > different in an urban and rural setting: a trunk in Metro > Manila does not have to be equivalent in function to a trunk > in Nueva Vizcaya. > > > > > > > Here are some descriptive interpretations I might > suggest (subject to discussion): > > > > > > trunk (rural) : long-distance route to traverse across > provinces > > > primary (rural) : mid-distance route to travel between > towns in a province > > > secondary (rural) : major streets within rural towns > > > tertiary (rural) : major streets within areas of rural > towns > > > unclassified,residential (rural) : other roads in > rural towns > > > > > > trunk (urban) : long-distance route across the > metropolis > > > primary (urban) : major road within a metropolitan > city > > > secondary (urban) : mid-level road within a > metropolitan city > > > tertiary (urban) : minor road in a metropolitan city > > > unclassified,residential (urban) : other roads in > metropolitan cities > > > > > > > > > I'll admit that I have no fixed idea as to how to > tag roads such that relative functional importance within > Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao) is consistent when you get > outside Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao). > > > > > > The problem is that in urban areas, the road density > is so high such that we need to differentiate the roads a > lot, whereas in rural areas, the density is low. > > ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
Let me just remind that whatever comes up as a consensus please add them in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions Excellent discussion btw. On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Ray wrote: > Hi, > >> Reviewing the map reveals that many places roads seems to have too high >> of a classification, misleading people to use roads that are not meant >> for a lot of traffic. >> >> From an overall perspective the classification of roads should be used >> to guide people which roads to prefer. > > +1 > I'm also in favor of tagging the roads after their properties and how > good you can travel on them. Eugine explained it very well. > > When i can recognize a better type on the images than "road" i'll change > it for nearly the same reasons Ian pointed out. > > For residential vs. unclassified: a road (or part of) which doesn't have > [a couple of] houses is IMHO unclassified. Maybe you can describe > residential as an special form of unclassified (i.g. not tertiary). > There are houses around so expect slow driving cos of parking cars and > people walking around. > > When someone traces a new road from images and don't know what kind of > road it is he should follow the legal classification. Later someone with > local knowledge can retag the road / split it up. On the satellite > images you can also see how much houses are around, so residential > should be easy. > >> Assuming that all motorway, trunk, primary, secondary and tertiary roads >> have been mapped long ago, newbies should only be concerned with the >> lower classes of roads. >> >> I suggest the out come of this discussion will be a series of photos of >> typical roads and how to tag them. >> >> I have started a document already for this purpose so this discussion is >> very welcome :-) >> >> http://idisk.mac.com/michael.riber//Public/osmph/Road Types 0.0.doc > > A guide with pictures is a great idea. Looking at the list, i would use > footway for roads / tracks to narrow for cars. Or highway=path and foot > / bicycle = yes if this matters. > Pedestrian is "For town centres and civic areas, where wide expanses of > hard surface are provided for pedestrians to walk (often between > shops)." (Wiki) > > As maning said, we need to get more use of track and tracktype. Can you > include this in your document? > > I suggest also that we make use of surface and lane keys. > surface=paved/unpaved/compacted will be important for rural roads and > navigation. > > Ray > > > ___ > talk-ph mailing list > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph > -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types
> Using type "road" causes 3 problems. > > 1 The road type is not recognised by JOSM (so it reports errors) > 2 Roads of type "road" are not rendered on maps, so I have had to fix roads > where someone has traced a road using the SPOT5 data, thinking that the road > was not already in the database, causing the road to be entered twice. > Wasting peoples time and effort. It does rendered at higher zoom level as dark grey roads. > 3 Routing software will not recognize the roads, and so won't route along > them. I would rather travel along an incorrectly classified road, rather than > have no route to a destination. That was really my intention, I use the tag highway=road to explicit define roads I simply traced with satellite images without any local knowledge. I sometimes add a note tag saying this road should be verified. This is what most contributors did in the first pass of edits in Pangasinan. http://osm.org/go/4zbZ07W-- A local should then re-tag this road to match what's on the ground,which is what user:bibinka of pangasinan is doing. If we simply re-tag them without local knowledge, it is even more dangerous. Moreover, there is a sense of 'completeness' when roads are tagged with arbitrary classes without ground verification. Data users (like garmin gps users) might assume since if it was tagged as residential/unclassified, the data was verified. In my garmin maps, I add a fixme label to highway=road to provide caution to users. If you notice, I've been tagging most roads with spot5 with highway=road except in areas I'm familiar with. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3672495 :) -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ -- ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
Hi, > Reviewing the map reveals that many places roads seems to have too high > of a classification, misleading people to use roads that are not meant > for a lot of traffic. > > From an overall perspective the classification of roads should be used > to guide people which roads to prefer. +1 I'm also in favor of tagging the roads after their properties and how good you can travel on them. Eugine explained it very well. When i can recognize a better type on the images than "road" i'll change it for nearly the same reasons Ian pointed out. For residential vs. unclassified: a road (or part of) which doesn't have [a couple of] houses is IMHO unclassified. Maybe you can describe residential as an special form of unclassified (i.g. not tertiary). There are houses around so expect slow driving cos of parking cars and people walking around. When someone traces a new road from images and don't know what kind of road it is he should follow the legal classification. Later someone with local knowledge can retag the road / split it up. On the satellite images you can also see how much houses are around, so residential should be easy. > Assuming that all motorway, trunk, primary, secondary and tertiary roads > have been mapped long ago, newbies should only be concerned with the > lower classes of roads. > > I suggest the out come of this discussion will be a series of photos of > typical roads and how to tag them. > > I have started a document already for this purpose so this discussion is > very welcome :-) > > http://idisk.mac.com/michael.riber//Public/osmph/Road Types 0.0.doc A guide with pictures is a great idea. Looking at the list, i would use footway for roads / tracks to narrow for cars. Or highway=path and foot / bicycle = yes if this matters. Pedestrian is "For town centres and civic areas, where wide expanses of hard surface are provided for pedestrians to walk (often between shops)." (Wiki) As maning said, we need to get more use of track and tracktype. Can you include this in your document? I suggest also that we make use of surface and lane keys. surface=paved/unpaved/compacted will be important for rural roads and navigation. Ray ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types
Hi, after a long break from OSM I discoverd the "keep right" website. http://keepright.ipax.at/report_map.php?db=osm_XD&zoom=14&lat=14.40516&lon=120.96369&layers=B00T&ch=0%2C30%2C40%2C50%2C60%2C70%2C90%2C100%2C110%2C120%2C130%2C150%2C160%2C170%2C180%2C191%2C192%2C193%2C194%2C201%2C202%2C203%2C204%2C210%2C220%2C231%2C232%2C270%2C281%2C282%2C283%2C284%2C291%2C292%2C293&show_ign=1&show_tmpign=1 For those that don't know. And seeing so many errors spurred me into action again. Of course that was before reading this. As for highway=unclassified, I don't see this of much use in the Philippines. Unclassified is a legal UK road type and not some road we don't know the proper class. Unclassified "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. Note: This is not a marker for roads where we still need to choose a highway tag (see highway=road for roads that require classification). " For people tracing from sat images but are unsure of the actual road type please use highway=road Whilst editing errors I changed some from type "road" to "unclassified" Using type "road" causes 3 problems. 1 The road type is not recognised by JOSM (so it reports errors) 2 Roads of type "road" are not rendered on maps, so I have had to fix roads where someone has traced a road using the SPOT5 data, thinking that the road was not already in the database, causing the road to be entered twice. Wasting peoples time and effort. 3 Routing software will not recognize the roads, and so won't route along them. I would rather travel along an incorrectly classified road, rather than have no route to a destination. Just my 2 centavos Cheers, Ian ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:50 PM, wrote: > Looking at the length of road of the different types this seem to underline > the problem. > > Motorway, Trunk, Primary, secondary and tertiary should only be a tiny > fraction of all the roads. > The bulk of the roads should be of lesser importance, such as unclassified > and residential. > There is a large amount of primary roads in the database right now simply because these are somewhat long-distance routes and are the first to be mapped. But if you analyze a mature area like Metro Manila, I'm willing to bet that a great majority of roads are unclassified/residential. ___ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types
Here's my interpretation: unclassified and residential are the lowest-importance general roads. These two form the lowest level (above the service-type roads) and residential is used for roads within residential areas like subdivisions. Then in terms of increasing importance, roads go from tertiary, secondary, primary to trunk. trunk roads form the highest level of a road network. motorways are trunk roads that have special features (limited entrances, high-speed, often has toll fees, etc.). think of it like te circulatory system. trunk/motorway roads are the largest arteries and veins while unclassified/residential are the capillaries. hope this helps. On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 7:49 PM, maning sambale wrote: > Hi, > > With the advent of more sat images outside Metro Manila I would like > to re-visit this discussion regarding road classes in rural areas. > As Eugene discussed below, rural roads are different. I think we > should use the track and tracktype tags for most rural roads. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > As for highway=unclassified, I don't see this of much use in the > Philippines. Unclassified is a legal UK road type and not some road > we don't know the proper class. > > Unclassified > "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form > the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. > Note: This is not a marker for roads where we still need to choose a > highway tag (see highway=road for roads that require classification). > " > > For people tracing from sat images but are unsure of the actual road > type please use highway=road > > For comments. > > cheers, > maning > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar > wrote: > > > > I suggest that the tags for > highway=trunk,primary,secondary,tertiary,unclassified be considered as a > function of traffic patterns and not of DOTC designation nor physical > appearance or condition. > > > > These values should also be considered relative to local traffic > patterns. This means that levels will be different in an urban and rural > setting: a trunk in Metro Manila does not have to be equivalent in function > to a trunk in Nueva Vizcaya. > > > > Here are some descriptive interpretations I might suggest (subject to > discussion): > > > > trunk (rural) : long-distance route to traverse across provinces > > primary (rural) : mid-distance route to travel between towns in a > province > > secondary (rural) : major streets within rural towns > > tertiary (rural) : major streets within areas of rural towns > > unclassified,residential (rural) : other roads in rural towns > > > > trunk (urban) : long-distance route across the metropolis > > primary (urban) : major road within a metropolitan city > > secondary (urban) : mid-level road within a metropolitan city > > tertiary (urban) : minor road in a metropolitan city > > unclassified,residential (urban) : other roads in metropolitan cities > > > > > > I'll admit that I have no fixed idea as to how to tag roads such that > relative functional importance within Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao) is > consistent when you get outside Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao). > > > > The problem is that in urban areas, the road density is so high such that > we need to differentiate the roads a lot, whereas in rural areas, the > density is low. > > > > For Metro Manila, EDSA and *parts* of C-5 are definitely trunk. > Commonwealth, Quirino (QC) and McArthur Highway are arguably trunk. Quezon > Avenue-Espana, Aurora-Marcos Highway, Ortigas-Ortigas Ext., Quirino > (Manila), and Roxas Blvd are not so clear. > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, wrote: > >> > >> Pardon my ignorance, but how do you classify road types? > >> > >> In the case of Mindanao Ave compared to Quirino Highway, apparently the > former is a wider road so i reclassified the. > >> > >> > >> Anthony > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> From: maning sambale > >> To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org > >> Date: 08/03/2009 10:06 AM > >> Subject: [talk-ph] changes of raod types > >> > >> > >> > >> I'm not objecting but I'm somehow curious about recent > >> reclassifications of several major roads lately: > >> > >> 1. Portions of Commonwealth from trunk to primary: > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.66209&lon=121.06976&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF > >> > >> 2. Mindanao Ave from primary to trunk: > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.67085&lon=121.03234&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF > >> > >> 3. Some parts of Quirino are either primary or trunk: > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.69974&lon=121.03273&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF > >> > >> 4. MacArthur Hiway from primary to trunk: > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.6755&lon=120.982&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF > >> > >> If we follow this trend, then I think Roxas Blvd should also be trunk as > well: > >> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.535
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
I happy this discussion comes up and I would like to chime in on this discussion. Reviewing the map reveals that many places roads seems to have too high of a classification, misleading people to use roads that are not meant for a lot of traffic. >From an overall perspective the classification of roads should be used to >guide people which roads to prefer. Looking at the length of road of the different types this seem to underline the problem. Motorway, Trunk, Primary, secondary and tertiary should only be a tiny fraction of all the roads. The bulk of the roads should be of lesser importance, such as unclassified and residential. Assuming that all motorway, trunk, primary, secondary and tertiary roads have been mapped long ago, newbies should only be concerned with the lower classes of roads. I suggest the out come of this discussion will be a series of photos of typical roads and how to tag them. Potlatch 2.0 is in the works and will simplify tagging of roads significantly. My hope is that we can update the newbie instructions so that everybody would feel comfortable tagging and naming roads. I have started a document already for this purpose so this discussion is very welcome :-) http://idisk.mac.com/michael.riber//Public/osmph/Road Types 0.0.doc From: maning sambale To: OSM-PH Sent: Fri, January 22, 2010 8:47:57 PM Subject: Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types I feel we should simplify it (although not too much), not everything here is applicable: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway Another example, I don't feel like using the tag living_street. Here's the highway length stats to give us a general idea what highway tags are currently in use: primary 13237678m residential 12304569m secondary 5340661m road 3958559m tertiary 3578034m unclassified 3040564m trunk 2262544m service 856653m track 803020m motorway558710m footway 220230m path179135m motorway_link71836m trunk_link 37981m primary_link 32565m cycleway 27131m construction 25302m pedestrian 14174m steps 3520m secondary_link2660m raceway 1542m living_street 1473m proposed 526m ford 277m old road 124m Alley 101m On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:22 PM, ianlopez wrote: > > Maybe we should describe unclassified roads in the Philippine context as > roads within verified and/or urban areas that are of mixed use (commercial, > retail, industrial, residential, farmland), while the residential roads can > be described as a "road in either urban or rural areas that are within areas > that are classified as mostly residential". The road tag can be used for > roads that have no actual road types, as proposed/planned. > > Tony Montana: Me, I want what's coming to me. > Manny Ribera: Oh, well what's coming to you? > Tony Montana: The world, chico, and everything in it. > - > http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/ > > > --- On Fri, 1/22/10, maning sambale wrote: > > From: maning sambale > Subject: Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types > To: "osm-ph" > Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 7:49 PM > > Hi, > > With the advent of more sat images outside Metro Manila I would like > to re-visit this discussion regarding road classes in rural areas. > As Eugene discussed below, rural roads are different. I think we > should use the track and tracktype tags for most rural roads. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > As for highway=unclassified, I don't see this of much use in the > Philippines. Unclassified is a legal UK road type and not some road > we don't know the proper class. > > Unclassified > "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form > the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. > Note: This is not a marker for roads where we still need to choose a > highway tag (see highway=road for roads that require classification). > " > > For people tracing from sat images but are unsure of the actual road > type please use highway=road > > For comments. > > cheers, > maning > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > > I suggest that the tags for > > highway=trunk,primary,secondary,tertiary,unclassified be considered as a > > function of traffic patterns and not of DOTC designation nor physical > > appearance or condition. > > > > These values should also be considered relative to local traffic patterns. > > This means that levels will be different in an urban and rural setting: a > > trunk in Metro Manila does not have to be equivalent in function to a trunk > > in Nueva Vizcaya. > > > > Here are some descriptive interpretations I might suggest (subject to > > di
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
I feel we should simplify it (although not too much), not everything here is applicable: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway Another example, I don't feel like using the tag living_street. Here's the highway length stats to give us a general idea what highway tags are currently in use: primary 13237678m residential 12304569m secondary 5340661m road 3958559m tertiary 3578034m unclassified 3040564m trunk 2262544m service 856653m track 803020m motorway558710m footway 220230m path179135m motorway_link71836m trunk_link 37981m primary_link 32565m cycleway 27131m construction 25302m pedestrian 14174m steps 3520m secondary_link2660m raceway 1542m living_street 1473m proposed 526m ford 277m old road 124m Alley 101m On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 8:22 PM, ianlopez wrote: > > Maybe we should describe unclassified roads in the Philippine context as > roads within verified and/or urban areas that are of mixed use (commercial, > retail, industrial, residential, farmland), while the residential roads can > be described as a "road in either urban or rural areas that are within areas > that are classified as mostly residential". The road tag can be used for > roads that have no actual road types, as proposed/planned. > > Tony Montana: Me, I want what's coming to me. > Manny Ribera: Oh, well what's coming to you? > Tony Montana: The world, chico, and everything in it. > - > http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/ > > > --- On Fri, 1/22/10, maning sambale wrote: > > From: maning sambale > Subject: Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types > To: "osm-ph" > Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 7:49 PM > > Hi, > > With the advent of more sat images outside Metro Manila I would like > to re-visit this discussion regarding road classes in rural areas. > As Eugene discussed below, rural roads are different. I think we > should use the track and tracktype tags for most rural roads. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > As for highway=unclassified, I don't see this of much use in the > Philippines. Unclassified is a legal UK road type and not some road > we don't know the proper class. > > Unclassified > "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form > the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. > Note: This is not a marker for roads where we still need to choose a > highway tag (see highway=road for roads that require classification). > " > > For people tracing from sat images but are unsure of the actual road > type please use highway=road > > For comments. > > cheers, > maning > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > > > I suggest that the tags for > > highway=trunk,primary,secondary,tertiary,unclassified be considered as a > > function of traffic patterns and not of DOTC designation nor physical > > appearance or condition. > > > > These values should also be considered relative to local traffic patterns. > > This means that levels will be different in an urban and rural setting: a > > trunk in Metro Manila does not have to be equivalent in function to a trunk > > in Nueva Vizcaya. > > > > Here are some descriptive interpretations I might suggest (subject to > > discussion): > > > > trunk (rural) : long-distance route to traverse across provinces > > primary (rural) : mid-distance route to travel between towns in a province > > secondary (rural) : major streets within rural towns > > tertiary (rural) : major streets within areas of rural towns > > unclassified,residential (rural) : other roads in rural towns > > > > trunk (urban) : long-distance route across the metropolis > > primary (urban) : major road within a metropolitan city > > secondary (urban) : mid-level road within a metropolitan city > > tertiary (urban) : minor road in a metropolitan city > > unclassified,residential (urban) : other roads in metropolitan cities > > > > > > I'll admit that I have no fixed idea as to how to tag roads such that > > relative functional importance within Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao) is > > consistent when you get outside Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao). > > > > The problem is that in urban areas, the road density is so high such that > > we need to differentiate the roads a lot, whereas in rural areas, the > > density is low. > > > > For Metro Manila, EDSA and *parts* of C-5 are definitely trunk. > > Commonwealth, Quirino (QC) and McArthur Highway are arguably trunk. Quezon > > Avenue-Espana, Aurora-Marcos Highway, Ortigas-Ortigas Ext., Quirino > > (Manila), and Roxas Blvd are not so clear. > > > > What do you guys think? > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, wrote: > >> > >> Pardon my
Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types
Maybe we should describe unclassified roads in the Philippine context as roads within verified and/or urban areas that are of mixed use (commercial, retail, industrial, residential, farmland), while the residential roads can be described as a "road in either urban or rural areas that are within areas that are classified as mostly residential". The road tag can be used for roads that have no actual road types, as proposed/planned. Tony Montana: Me, I want what's coming to me. Manny Ribera: Oh, well what's coming to you? Tony Montana: The world, chico, and everything in it. - http://ianlopez1115.wordpress.com/ --- On Fri, 1/22/10, maning sambale wrote: From: maning sambale Subject: Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types To: "osm-ph" Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 7:49 PM Hi, With the advent of more sat images outside Metro Manila I would like to re-visit this discussion regarding road classes in rural areas. As Eugene discussed below, rural roads are different. I think we should use the track and tracktype tags for most rural roads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype As for highway=unclassified, I don't see this of much use in the Philippines. Unclassified is a legal UK road type and not some road we don't know the proper class. Unclassified "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. Note: This is not a marker for roads where we still need to choose a highway tag (see highway=road for roads that require classification). " For people tracing from sat images but are unsure of the actual road type please use highway=road For comments. cheers, maning On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > I suggest that the tags for > highway=trunk,primary,secondary,tertiary,unclassified be considered as a > function of traffic patterns and not of DOTC designation nor physical > appearance or condition. > > These values should also be considered relative to local traffic patterns. > This means that levels will be different in an urban and rural setting: a > trunk in Metro Manila does not have to be equivalent in function to a trunk > in Nueva Vizcaya. > > Here are some descriptive interpretations I might suggest (subject to > discussion): > > trunk (rural) : long-distance route to traverse across provinces > primary (rural) : mid-distance route to travel between towns in a province > secondary (rural) : major streets within rural towns > tertiary (rural) : major streets within areas of rural towns > unclassified,residential (rural) : other roads in rural towns > > trunk (urban) : long-distance route across the metropolis > primary (urban) : major road within a metropolitan city > secondary (urban) : mid-level road within a metropolitan city > tertiary (urban) : minor road in a metropolitan city > unclassified,residential (urban) : other roads in metropolitan cities > > > I'll admit that I have no fixed idea as to how to tag roads such that > relative functional importance within Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao) is > consistent when you get outside Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao). > > The problem is that in urban areas, the road density is so high such that we > need to differentiate the roads a lot, whereas in rural areas, the density is > low. > > For Metro Manila, EDSA and *parts* of C-5 are definitely trunk. Commonwealth, > Quirino (QC) and McArthur Highway are arguably trunk. Quezon Avenue-Espana, > Aurora-Marcos Highway, Ortigas-Ortigas Ext., Quirino (Manila), and Roxas Blvd > are not so clear. > > What do you guys think? > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, wrote: >> >> Pardon my ignorance, but how do you classify road types? >> >> In the case of Mindanao Ave compared to Quirino Highway, apparently the >> former is a wider road so i reclassified the. >> >> >> Anthony >> >> >> >> >> From: maning sambale >> To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >> Date: 08/03/2009 10:06 AM >> Subject: [talk-ph] changes of raod types >> >> >> >> I'm not objecting but I'm somehow curious about recent >> reclassifications of several major roads lately: >> >> 1. Portions of Commonwealth from trunk to primary: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.66209&lon=121.06976&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> 2. Mindanao Ave from primary to trunk: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.67085&lon=121.03234&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> 3. Some parts of Quirino are either primary or trunk: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.69974&lon=121.03273&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> 4. MacArthur Hiway from primary to trunk: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.6755&lon=120.982&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> If we follow this trend, then I think Roxas Blvd should also be trunk as >> well: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.53551&lon=121.00028&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> Which means Metro Manila roads will be a whole lot greener
Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types
Hi, With the advent of more sat images outside Metro Manila I would like to re-visit this discussion regarding road classes in rural areas. As Eugene discussed below, rural roads are different. I think we should use the track and tracktype tags for most rural roads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype As for highway=unclassified, I don't see this of much use in the Philippines. Unclassified is a legal UK road type and not some road we don't know the proper class. Unclassified "No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. Note: This is not a marker for roads where we still need to choose a highway tag (see highway=road for roads that require classification). " For people tracing from sat images but are unsure of the actual road type please use highway=road For comments. cheers, maning On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > > I suggest that the tags for > highway=trunk,primary,secondary,tertiary,unclassified be considered as a > function of traffic patterns and not of DOTC designation nor physical > appearance or condition. > > These values should also be considered relative to local traffic patterns. > This means that levels will be different in an urban and rural setting: a > trunk in Metro Manila does not have to be equivalent in function to a trunk > in Nueva Vizcaya. > > Here are some descriptive interpretations I might suggest (subject to > discussion): > > trunk (rural) : long-distance route to traverse across provinces > primary (rural) : mid-distance route to travel between towns in a province > secondary (rural) : major streets within rural towns > tertiary (rural) : major streets within areas of rural towns > unclassified,residential (rural) : other roads in rural towns > > trunk (urban) : long-distance route across the metropolis > primary (urban) : major road within a metropolitan city > secondary (urban) : mid-level road within a metropolitan city > tertiary (urban) : minor road in a metropolitan city > unclassified,residential (urban) : other roads in metropolitan cities > > > I'll admit that I have no fixed idea as to how to tag roads such that > relative functional importance within Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao) is > consistent when you get outside Metro Manila (Cebu, Davao). > > The problem is that in urban areas, the road density is so high such that we > need to differentiate the roads a lot, whereas in rural areas, the density is > low. > > For Metro Manila, EDSA and *parts* of C-5 are definitely trunk. Commonwealth, > Quirino (QC) and McArthur Highway are arguably trunk. Quezon Avenue-Espana, > Aurora-Marcos Highway, Ortigas-Ortigas Ext., Quirino (Manila), and Roxas Blvd > are not so clear. > > What do you guys think? > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:22 AM, wrote: >> >> Pardon my ignorance, but how do you classify road types? >> >> In the case of Mindanao Ave compared to Quirino Highway, apparently the >> former is a wider road so i reclassified the. >> >> >> Anthony >> >> >> >> >> From: maning sambale >> To: talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >> Date: 08/03/2009 10:06 AM >> Subject: [talk-ph] changes of raod types >> >> >> >> I'm not objecting but I'm somehow curious about recent >> reclassifications of several major roads lately: >> >> 1. Portions of Commonwealth from trunk to primary: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.66209&lon=121.06976&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> 2. Mindanao Ave from primary to trunk: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.67085&lon=121.03234&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> 3. Some parts of Quirino are either primary or trunk: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.69974&lon=121.03273&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> 4. MacArthur Hiway from primary to trunk: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.6755&lon=120.982&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> If we follow this trend, then I think Roxas Blvd should also be trunk as >> well: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=14.53551&lon=121.00028&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF >> >> Which means Metro Manila roads will be a whole lot greener (in the map >> at least). >> >> PS. Apologies for non-manila members >> >> >> >> -- >> cheers, >> maning >> -- >> "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden >> wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ >> blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/ >> -- >> >> ___ >> talk-ph mailing list >> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph >> >> >> >> ___ >> talk-ph mailing list >> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph >> > > > > -- > http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com -- cheers, maning --
