Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

(Late reply)

Just a heads up, 2020 census figures are now available and the list of
large cities for determining trunk routes needs to be updated.

Some highlights:
- 6 small cities (Tayabas, Tacurong, Masbate City, Balanga, Guihulngan,
Lamitan) the existing list for determining primary roads have become large
cities
- 1 large city (Panabo) has become a small city
- Calaca, pending plebiscite (since postponed to 2022), is added to the
list of small cities
- 15 municipalities (Guiguinto, Pandi, Pulilan, San Rafael in Bulacan,
Carmona, Kawit, Carmen in Bukidnon, Santa Cruz in Davao del Sur, Parang in
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat, Calasiao, Tiaong, T‘boli, Paniqui, Sindangan)
are added to the list of large municipalities used to determine primary
routes

I’m also working on some of the exceptions, particularly in Central Luzon
and CALABARZON. Examples to note the main roads in San Mateo and Rodriguez,
roads to Candaba, and the roads in Bondoc Peninsula in Quezon Province.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Timeo Gut]

Hello Jherome,

I just noticed now the changes 
 
that you made to the classifications table on the main mapping 
conventions page. You basically removed all the refinement and updates 
that have been made over the last 5 years (by yourself and by others). 
Besides the questionable deleting of a lot of important details, I find 
it very confusing that you reintroduced definitions that have been 
replaced almost two years ago. These old definitions do not reflect 
current usage anymore.


While never formally approved, by observing how classifications are 
applied by mappers it seems clear that the changes were widely accepted.


I think it would be best to restore the March 1 version of the table and 
then proceed from there with bite-sized modifications whenever further 
refinement is appropriate.



On 2021-07-04 12:29, Jherome Miguel wrote:
Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the 
earlier discussion at the git (see
https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38 
)


First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk 
roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy 
(a.k.a. “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely 
disagree with that for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to 
trunk because it’s being an critical link for movement of goods in 
one’s opinion, and led to primary and below its “branches”. I agree 
trunk roads are generally vital highway links, but this time, we need 
a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route should a key road link 
between major population centers (i.e. large cities).


Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of 
the existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national 
road. Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during 
that time, I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses 
(national primary, national secondary, national tertiary) as found in 
the DPWH department order I referenced, which has defining functional 
criteria that is of relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to 
deemphasize official designation and use informal tests that would 
only worsen the problem with the already dense trunk road network. Add 
to the problem is the presence of two proposals, one by me (which is 
based on multiple factors) and one by Erwin (which ties OSM 
classification with gov’t designation).


Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in 
the wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in 
the wiki are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any 
discussion here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal 
guidelines; these suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to 
take them as such. Again, the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being 
more of an amendment to the pre-existing scheme.


Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing 
classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions 
or rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying 
these. I would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as 
containing conflicting, controversial or outdated information.


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


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

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Aw, sorry for my last post. I see now you’ve possibly misread or missed
part of my email that you replied to. I was saying you have the first draft
proposal where the OSM classification of a road is closely tied to the
road’s official designation (i.e. trunk = national road, primary =
provincial road, secondary = city/municipal road, tertiary = barangay
road), which many of us disagree with because official road classifications
has more to do with funding, and won’t create a good road map.

On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:37 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Sorry for that, I can’t recall everything in the git ticket. Who actually
> did the second proposal?
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:11 AM Erwin Olario  wrote:
>
>> Correction: I never proposed changing OSM highway classifications with
>> government designations.
>>
>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>> » email: erwin@ *n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
>> 
>> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
>> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93
>> D56B
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the
>>> earlier discussion at the git (see
>>> https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38)
>>>
>>> First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk
>>> roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy (a.k.a.
>>> “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely disagree with that
>>> for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to trunk because it’s being
>>> an critical link for movement of goods in one’s opinion, and led to primary
>>> and below its “branches”. I agree trunk roads are generally vital highway
>>> links, but this time, we need a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route
>>> should a key road link between major population centers (i.e. large
>>> cities).
>>>
>>> Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of the
>>> existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national road.
>>> Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during that time,
>>> I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses (national primary,
>>> national secondary, national tertiary) as found in the DPWH department
>>> order I referenced, which has defining functional criteria that is of
>>> relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to deemphasize official
>>> designation and use informal tests that would only worsen the problem with
>>> the already dense trunk road network. Add to the problem is the presence of
>>> two proposals, one by me (which is based on multiple factors) and one by
>>> Erwin (which ties OSM classification with gov’t designation).
>>>
>>> Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in the
>>> wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in the wiki
>>> are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any discussion
>>> here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal guidelines; these
>>> suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to take them as such. Again,
>>> the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being more of an amendment to
>>> the pre-existing scheme.
>>>
>>> Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing
>>> classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions or
>>> rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying these. I
>>> would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as containing
>>> conflicting, controversial or outdated information.
>>> ___
>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>
>>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

It’s not clear if we’re getting into a consensus, so I'll be mentioning two
major reasons why the road classification scheme needs major reform:

* Manila-centrism. Existing scheme documented in the wiki works fine in
Metro Manila and surrounding areas, but not most of the country. Definition
of primary is particularly of note; it's fine for major links between Metro
Manila's cities, but not for most roads in the rest of the country. Having
every road to even town tagged as primary is overkill and there are also
connectivity issues arising from this (that’s where importance, tied to the
sizes of major destinations, comes into play)
* Clearer definition of trunk. Trunk is long used for all major roads links
between the largest cities, but a lack of a clear definition and reasonable
cut-off points creates room for misuse. Being a national primary road (or
1- to 2-digit route) is just one factor for trunk, noting official
designations don't match well with OSM’s; being a link between major
population centers (i.e. large cities, NEDA-designated metropolitan areas)
and with minimal shortcuts or alignment jogs (save perhaps turns to connect
with more recently built bypasses) is a more important factor.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:42 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> A route would be marked trunk if it serves two large cities (see list on
> proposal page) or metro areas. Some trunk routings with ferry segments
> under the proposal follow Nautical Highway routes. I have marked Route 505
> (Arnaldo Boulevard and Baybay in Roxas City) as trunk in the present and
> future schemes, but if you're suggesting trunk routings with a ferry
> segment should have multiple scheduled trips every day or the ferry leaving
> full, which is not the case here due to long trip length (Batangas-Roxas
> direct being ~17 hours long), then I can drop that in favor of the Mindoro
> and Caticlan routing. Would also like to note this with the Central
> Nautical Highway routing (Legazpi-Pilar-Aroroy-Masbate
> City-Cataingan-Bogo-Cebu City-Tubigon-Jagna-Camiguin-Balingoan). While the
> Cebu-Legazpi legs of this route, currently tagged trunk, provides a
> shortcut to the usual routing between the two cities via Eastern Visayas,
> the Cataingan-Bogo leg has infrequent ferry service, and the Masbate
> segments downgraded to primary (the Cebu-Bogo legs would remain trunk as it
> connects with the Bogo-Palompon ferry that forms the Cebu-Ormoc trunk
> routing); same goes with the Cebu-Bohol-Camiguin-Balingoan legs, which have
> been long tagged primary.
>
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:45 AM Timeo Gut  wrote:
>
>> I also think that there should be no classification gaps for major
>> routes.
>>
>> But it might be good to define some criteria as for what qualifies as
>> major. I'd like to suggest to only apply this to ferries that have either
>> continuous service (ferry leaves whenever full) or at least multiple
>> scheduled trips every day.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Timmy
>>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

A route would be marked trunk if it serves two large cities (see list on
proposal page) or metro areas. Some trunk routings with ferry segments
under the proposal follow Nautical Highway routes. I have marked Route 505
(Arnaldo Boulevard and Baybay in Roxas City) as trunk in the present and
future schemes, but if you're suggesting trunk routings with a ferry
segment should have multiple scheduled trips every day or the ferry leaving
full, which is not the case here due to long trip length (Batangas-Roxas
direct being ~17 hours long), then I can drop that in favor of the Mindoro
and Caticlan routing. Would also like to note this with the Central
Nautical Highway routing (Legazpi-Pilar-Aroroy-Masbate
City-Cataingan-Bogo-Cebu City-Tubigon-Jagna-Camiguin-Balingoan). While the
Cebu-Legazpi legs of this route, currently tagged trunk, provides a
shortcut to the usual routing between the two cities via Eastern Visayas,
the Cataingan-Bogo leg has infrequent ferry service, and the Masbate
segments downgraded to primary (the Cebu-Bogo legs would remain trunk as it
connects with the Bogo-Palompon ferry that forms the Cebu-Ormoc trunk
routing); same goes with the Cebu-Bohol-Camiguin-Balingoan legs, which have
been long tagged primary.

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:45 AM Timeo Gut  wrote:

> I also think that there should be no classification gaps for major routes.
>
> But it might be good to define some criteria as for what qualifies as
> major. I'd like to suggest to only apply this to ferries that have either
> continuous service (ferry leaves whenever full) or at least multiple
> scheduled trips every day.
>
> Best Regards,
> Timmy
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Timeo Gut]

I also think that there should be no classification gaps for major routes.

But it might be good to define some criteria as for what qualifies as 
major. I'd like to suggest to only apply this to ferries that have 
either continuous service (ferry leaves whenever full) or at least 
multiple scheduled trips every day.


Best Regards,
Timmy


On 2021-06-09 03:33, Jherome Miguel wrote:
Just another point, I think we should be extending major roads to 
ferry terminals so to ensure network connectivity across islands. I've 
been noticing the prevailing practice in the Philippines is to end a 
major road at the port gates, but this breaks connectivity of the road 
network across islands at a closer zoom level. I'm citing examples of 
major roads extending to ferry terminals in places like the US (e.g. 
US-10 connecting with the Maniwotoc-Ludington ferry, roads connecting 
with ferries across the Puget Sound in Washington State) Canada (e.g. 
the Trans-Canada connecting with the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and 
Sydney-Port aux Basques ferries), Russia (e.g. roads connecting A-376 
and A-392 with the Vanino-Kolmsk ferry), and Sweden and Finland (e.g. 
E12 between Umeå and Vaasa across the Gulf of Bothnia) to justify this 
change in practice, though elsewhere, especially where OSM 
classifications matched well with official designations often 
indicated by route number signs with a specific numbering scheme 
and/or color combination, like with most of Europe (including the UK), 
Japan and Indonesia, it’s fine to end major classifications outside 
the port gates and tag the roads inside the ferry terminal with lower 
classifications (usually service, sometimes tertiary for the major 
access roads). In those places, their roads networks are connected 
well even if it's only true at higher zoom, or the scale for a printed 
country or region map.



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


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

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Have just completed a major overhaul of the draft guidelines to include
more elaborate descriptions of each classification from motorway to
residential, I also identified what roads would fall under trunk under the
proposal (though most are already tagged as such). This includes most of
the national primary roads (except where bypassed) as well as some
identified national secondary roads, particularly ones connecting with RORO
terminals. There is one special case of trunk, Plaridel Bypass, being a
future expressway (as future Plaridel Toll Road).

There is however a problem with the non-expressway segments of C-5, which
would remain as trunk, but with Routes 59 (Marcos Highway) and 60 (Ortigas
Ave east of EDSA up to Antipolo) downgraded to primary, it would be
isolated from the rest of the trunk network. To provide the best
connectivity, it would mean completely marking all of Congressional Ave
(Route 129) as trunk (with the consideration the opening of NLEX Segment
8.2 will eventually downgrade the Mindanao Ave leg of C-5 to primary)
keeping trunk status on part of Ortigas Ave around Ortigas Center may also
help.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 2:33 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Just another point, I think we should be extending major roads to ferry
> terminals so to ensure network connectivity across islands. I've been
> noticing the prevailing practice in the Philippines is to end a major road
> at the port gates, but this breaks connectivity of the road network across
> islands at a closer zoom level. I'm citing examples of major roads
> extending to ferry terminals in places like the US (e.g. US-10 connecting
> with the Maniwotoc-Ludington ferry, roads connecting with ferries across
> the Puget Sound in Washington State) Canada (e.g. the Trans-Canada
> connecting with the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and Sydney-Port aux Basques
> ferries), Russia (e.g. roads connecting A-376 and A-392 with the
> Vanino-Kolmsk ferry), and Sweden and Finland (e.g. E12 between Umeå and
> Vaasa across the Gulf of Bothnia) to justify this change in practice,
> though elsewhere, especially where OSM classifications matched well with
> official designations often indicated by route number signs with a specific
> numbering scheme and/or color combination, like with most of Europe
> (including the UK), Japan and Indonesia, it’s fine to end major
> classifications outside the port gates and tag the roads inside the ferry
> terminal with lower classifications (usually service, sometimes tertiary
> for the major access roads). In those places, their roads networks are
> connected well even if it's only true at higher zoom, or the scale for a
> printed country or region map.
>
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

Just another point, I think we should be extending major roads to ferry
terminals so to ensure network connectivity across islands. I've been
noticing the prevailing practice in the Philippines is to end a major road
at the port gates, but this breaks connectivity of the road network across
islands at a closer zoom level. I'm citing examples of major roads
extending to ferry terminals in places like the US (e.g. US-10 connecting
with the Maniwotoc-Ludington ferry, roads connecting with ferries across
the Puget Sound in Washington State) Canada (e.g. the Trans-Canada
connecting with the Nanaimo-Horseshoe Bay and Sydney-Port aux Basques
ferries), Russia (e.g. roads connecting A-376 and A-392 with the
Vanino-Kolmsk ferry), and Sweden and Finland (e.g. E12 between Umeå and
Vaasa across the Gulf of Bothnia) to justify this change in practice,
though elsewhere, especially where OSM classifications matched well with
official designations often indicated by route number signs with a specific
numbering scheme and/or color combination, like with most of Europe
(including the UK), Japan and Indonesia, it’s fine to end major
classifications outside the port gates and tag the roads inside the ferry
terminal with lower classifications (usually service, sometimes tertiary
for the major access roads). In those places, their roads networks are
connected well even if it's only true at higher zoom, or the scale for a
printed country or region map.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Timeo Gut]

I'd like to discuss a possible downgrade of primaries in Davao and CDO. 
I think several of these roads are good examples for unnumbered routes 
with major importance.


Let's start with Davao. Since the opening of Slaughterhouse Road and the 
subsequent widening of Gold-Ruby-Mabini to 4 lanes most through-traffic 
from Diversion Road to downtown (previously passing through Ma-a) is now 
being diverted through this more direct route. Given that Ma-a now 
mostly serves local traffic (the main exception being connectivity from 
Calinan-Magtuod Road to Matina), downgrading to secondary seems 
appropriate. It should be noted that the current main link between 
Diversion Road and Downtown is only intended as a temporary solution 
which will become redundant with the construction of Davao City 
Expressway Phase 1. This planned project would also significantly reduce 
the importance of Bacaca Road, which could then be considered for 
downgrade to secondary.


Some background about Libby Road: Under the project title Davao City 
Diversion Extension to Toril this road has been fully widened to 4 
lanes. Together with Talomo-Puan Bypass it serves as a feasible 
alternative route from Bangkal to Toril. Especially for traffic to and 
from N10 it's almost always the faster route as it bypasses Crossing 
Ulas and Crossing Puan. It should also be considered that Toril is a 
town-like suburb that far exceeds the population criteria laid out for 
primary roads. I think it would be best to keep the current 
classification for now and only downgrade to secondary once Libby Road 
will be superseded by Davao Bypass Road.


As for Manolo Fortich-Libona-Indahag Road, in its current state it is 
clearly sub-standard for a primary road, especially the section from 
Indahag to J.R. Borja. Despite of that it serves as a viable and in some 
cases faster alternative for travel between two large population centers 
within Metro CDO. Maybe we can ask for opinions on this from local 
contributors. Edge cases like this are really difficult to assess 
without extensive ground knowledge.


 Best regards,
Timmy

On 2021-06-07 23:27, Jherome Miguel wrote:
On the proposed reclassifications I'm documenting at uMap, I've been 
trying to identify trunk and primary routes across sprawling urban 
areas of places like Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, Davao and Cagayan de 
Oro. Those places are are a different beast from the rest of the 
country. What route gets trunk Class needs to be carefully selected 
especially where they’re part of the same corridor. Primary should 
generally be assigned to main thoroughfares, and for me, best not 
assigned on any road without a road number, with the possible exceptions.


Some ideas:

- For Davao City, trunk network is fine. Primaries around Davao City 
may need some partial tweaks, especially those linking C.P. 
Garcia/Diversion Road with city proper. Should consider downgrade for 
Libby Road between Toril and Talomo (would consider this secondary 
being functionally lower than MacArthur Highway, plus road being 
narrow and classified national tertiary).
- For Cagayan de Oro, trunk network is fine (may move trunk 
classification to the bypass formed by the Coastal Roads, San Pedro 
Street and San Lazaro Road once the missing link near port opens). 
Primary network good, but should consider downgrade to J.R. Borja and 
the road to Libona and Manolo Fortich (low speeds, narrow carriageway, 
less traffic and lower official classification).


Sorry for the late reply, having another pause from mapping. I've been 
also looking up the talk-us archive for the latest discussion on 
reforming U.S. road classifications that has been pointed out earlier 
here.


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


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

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Jherome Miguel]

On the proposed reclassifications I'm documenting at uMap, I've been trying
to identify trunk and primary routes across sprawling urban areas of places
like Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, Davao and Cagayan de Oro. Those places are
are a different beast from the rest of the country. What route gets trunk
Class needs to be carefully selected especially where they’re part of the
same corridor. Primary should generally be assigned to main thoroughfares,
and for me, best not assigned on any road without a road number, with the
possible exceptions.

Some ideas:

- Metro Manila: keep most of existing trunk network, but with upgrades to
Alabang-Zapote (Route 411, whole including connector to CAVITEX), Quirino
and Diego Cera (Route 62), and section of NAIA Road between Roxas Boulevard
and Quirino to trunk to close Route 1 gap across metro. I'm also inclined
to downgrade the España-Quezon Ave-Commonwealth trio (plus Lerma, Quezon
Boulevard and Padre Burgos) back to primary (as they used to be ~10
years ago); even with their high traffic volumes and physical character
that are similar with EDSA (e.g. wide carriageways, center islands, grade
separations), these needs to be downgraded under the new classification
scheme; again, we need to be more selective on assigning trunk to major
routes across sprawl like Metro Manila and surroundings.
- For suburban Rizal, Laguna and Cavite, I'm thinking about doing away with
most trunks in suburban Cavite and all in Rizal. Can keep trunk for
Aguinaldo Highway (Routes 62 and 419) up to Dasma as well as Governor's
Drive east of Dasma and General Malvar in Biñan (Routes 65 and 651) as
trunk, but downgrade Tirona, Centennial, Antero Soriano, Route 64
Tanza-Trece, Governor's Drive and Aguinaldo Highway to Tagaytay) west of
Dasma (as well as connections to Nasugbu from Tagaytay and Ternate). Should
do away with any trunk in Rizal (including Sumulong Highway, part of the
Antipolo Circumferential Road, Ortigas Ave, Manila East Road and bypasses,
plus connections in eastern Laguna and part of western Quezon Province like
Route 603 all the way to Lucena).
- For Metro Cebu, which currently has two trunks through Talisay, Cebu
City, Mandaue, Consolacion and Liloan, plus dead-end trunks assigned to the
bridges across to Mactan, I'm thinking of moving trunk to the whole of
Route 840 (CSCR, Osmeña, Ouano, Plaridel, Cansaga Bay Bridge, and
Consolacion-Tayud-Liloan), being the best route to Cebu City these days
than the bypassed sections of Natalio Bacalso and Cebu North Road even with
the Consolacion-Liloan segments being recent upgrades from provincial road
(and therefore narrow and lower-standard until some time). Route 8 north
and south of Route 840 can remain as it is (plus cleanup of parts are
messed up by “MonitoringGPS”).
- For Davao City, trunk network is fine. Primaries around Davao City may
need some partial tweaks, especially those linking C.P. Garcia/Diversion
Road with city proper. Should consider downgrade for Libby Road between
Toril and Talomo (would consider this secondary being functionally lower
than MacArthur Highway, plus road being narrow and classified national
tertiary).
- For Cagayan de Oro, trunk network is fine (may move trunk classification
to the bypass formed by the Coastal Roads, San Pedro Street and San Lazaro
Road once the missing link near port opens). Primary network good, but
should consider downgrade to J.R. Borja and the road to Libona and Manolo
Fortich (low speeds, narrow carriageway, less traffic and lower official
classification).

Sorry for the late reply, having another pause from mapping. I've been also
looking up the talk-us archive for the latest discussion on reforming U.S.
road classifications that has been pointed out earlier here.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Timeo Gut]

Hello Eugene,

As mentioned in a previous mail 
, 
I've already added the designation values that you previously proposed 
to the documentation on the road classification page 
. 



These are:
national_primary_road
national_secondary_road
national_tertiary_road
provincial_road
municipal_road (also serves for city roads so that we don't need to 
retag when towns become cities)

barangay_road

Adding expressway  seems to be a no-brainer. I also like the suggestion 
of a separate designation for city roads as I think the reduced 
potential for confusion outweighs the effort needed for retagging when 
municipalities  become cities.


As for the specific values, I find the previous variant that includes 
the road suffix much better because it's a clear distinction from 
designation for administrative entities (especially for barangay roads 
where the value without suffix would be identical).


Regards,
Timmy


On 22/05/2021 16:34, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:

HI Jherome,

I forgot to add, I think we should also include tagging the official 
legal classifications of roads using the "designation" key: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation 



I think we can have the following values: "expressway", "national", 
"provincial", "city", "municipal", and "barangay". We might also need 
to break down the "national" value into "national_primary", 
"national_secondary", and "national_tertiary" following the DPWH classes.


~Eugene

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 5:02 AM Jherome Miguel 
mailto:jheromemig...@gmail.com>> wrote:


Hi, everyone,

It's been a month since the last discussion on road
classifications, that time regarding special considerations for
major roads within certain islands as well as missing road links
and bypass/diversion roads under construction. Now, I'll be
presenting the final version of the proposal at

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads/Classification

.


Summary of the proposed guidelines:
- Motorway = Expressways (HSH-1 standard)
- Trunk = highways between large cities; HSH-2 expressways (none
existing yet). In large urban areas composed of many large cities
like Manila or Cebu, should be applied sparingly and limited to
primary through routes across the area that are not expressways
and connect with longer trunk routes. Trunk routes should
generally be moved to bypasses where they exist.
- Primary = highways between small cities, large municipalities
and provincial capitals that are neither cities or large
municipalities; major arterials in urban context.
- Secondary = highways between medium-sized municipalities; minor
arterials in urban context.
- Tertiary = roads between small municipalities and most
barangays; collector roads in urban context.
- Unclassified = other local roads that are not residential in
nature; other smaller roads connecting sitios and puroks in rural
areas
- Residential = residential streets
- Track = farm or forestry tracks
- Service = driveways, parking lot roads, alleys, emergency median
openings on expressways

Some factors that can affect choice of classification are:

- administrative designation
- connectivity
- existing network topology (particularly relevant in small
islands where there are few major roads)
- function (expressway, major/minor arterial, collector, local)
- physical qualities (no. of lanes, shoulders, road width,
presence of median/center island)
- sizes of settlements served

I want anyone's final say here before we can adopt them as
guidelines in our main mapping convention page.
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph



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


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

Re: [talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

HI Jherome,

I forgot to add, I think we should also include tagging the official legal
classifications of roads using the "designation" key:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation

I think we can have the following values: "expressway", "national",
"provincial", "city", "municipal", and "barangay". We might also need to
break down the "national" value into "national_primary",
"national_secondary", and "national_tertiary" following the DPWH classes.

~Eugene

On Sun, May 16, 2021 at 5:02 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Hi, everyone,
>
> It's been a month since the last discussion on road classifications, that
> time regarding special considerations for major roads within certain
> islands as well as missing road links and bypass/diversion roads under
> construction. Now, I'll be presenting the final version of the proposal at
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads/Classification
> .
>
> Summary of the proposed guidelines:
> - Motorway = Expressways (HSH-1 standard)
> - Trunk = highways between large cities; HSH-2 expressways (none existing
> yet). In large urban areas composed of many large cities like Manila or
> Cebu, should be applied sparingly and limited to primary through routes
> across the area that are not expressways and connect with longer trunk
> routes. Trunk routes should generally be moved to bypasses where they exist.
> - Primary = highways between small cities, large municipalities and
> provincial capitals that are neither cities or large municipalities; major
> arterials in urban context.
> - Secondary = highways between medium-sized municipalities; minor
> arterials in urban context.
> - Tertiary = roads between small municipalities and most barangays;
> collector roads in urban context.
> - Unclassified = other local roads that are not residential in nature;
> other smaller roads connecting sitios and puroks in rural areas
> - Residential = residential streets
> - Track = farm or forestry tracks
> - Service = driveways, parking lot roads, alleys, emergency median
> openings on expressways
>
> Some factors that can affect choice of classification are:
>
> - administrative designation
> - connectivity
> - existing network topology (particularly relevant in small islands where
> there are few major roads)
> - function (expressway, major/minor arterial, collector, local)
> - physical qualities (no. of lanes, shoulders, road width, presence of
> median/center island)
> - sizes of settlements served
>
> I want anyone's final say here before we can adopt them as guidelines in
> our main mapping convention page.
> ___
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph