Re: [Talk-us] South Carolina State Highways - primary overload
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > I think discussion can only be useful if and when we have a common > understanding of what 'trunk', 'primary', 'secondary' etc. mean to us. > I don't think we're anywhere close to that, looking at the various and > partly mutually contradictory wiki pages on the topic: > I think this part of the tagging scheme that is the most puzzling issue for US mappers. In the Phoenix area, http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/33.5683/-112.0901, I've used primary as a way of showing travelers what is the best way to get through all of our mountain preserve areas. Since the traffic has to funnel through these passages the amount of traffic that these roads has to handle probably lines up with what a primary road should be. I use residential for 0 to 25 mph residential roads. That tag seems obvious. I use tertiary for 30 to 35 mph roads. I see most of these types of roads as connecting residential subdivisions. These roads tend to have bike lanes too. I also see dashed yellow lines or two solid yellow lines as another indication of changing the road to tertiary in mostly residential areas. I use secondary for 40 to 45 mph roads. The roads that I have marked as primary are any where from 35 mph to 50 mph. I use motorway for the major concrete highways. This gives me a plan that I can follow with some consistency even if I cannot say that it is the correct thing to do. I ignore JOSM validation on this question because there is no highway reference for tertiary, secondary, and primary in most cases where I have used the tags. However, leaving a more than 25 mph road as residential seems like the wrong thing to do. I hope this helps, Greg ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept
Peter, Yes, Magnificent Mile. It's been a few years! I don't have much argument with most of what you say. I was reacting to what I perceived as comments from some that "what the locals call it" should get priority with regards shields. It should be whatever the DOT has designated the road as (see the mile markers when installed). However there are many MAJOR roads with dual or more routes on them. A significant mid-west US example is I-80/I-90 from Elyria, OH to Gary, IN. For OSM to display only one of those route numbers in its shields is not, in my opinion, "user friendly" for map readers. And as I noted, it appears there is a problem with OSM and dual/multiple route tags in at least some areas: no shields show for many miles where the dual routes exist. Yes the MUTCD is a guide to what to hang on a sign post or overhead gantry rather than a mapper's guide, but the use of multiple route signs on a single pole tells you that the DOTs want us to know all the route numbers of a given stretch of pavement. The MapQuest Open layer of OSM does the same and for me at least, this does not represent "shield clutter." Kerry From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 2:53 PM To: Kerry Irons Cc: Tod Fitch; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept Kerry, Your reference is to "The Magnificent Mile", a hyped up name for Michigan Avenue, Chicago's main shopping street. I happen to be sitting on a plane to Chicago right now and the lady sitting next to me got your meaning immediately. Check out http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/153654226 You say that "map users want to see all the route numbers on a given piece of pavement, not just the ..." principal route. Yet there are many different types of map user, each with different needs and preferences. I had said "We need a way of capturing [the principal route designator] in OSM for use in nav systems and info systems, as well as (perhaps) for ridding simple maps of route shield clutter." Note my "(perhaps)" and "simple maps". I would never suggest that OSM mappers want to be rid of what I risked calling "route shield clutter." But my job is to design map-based info systems for use by as many people as possible, and this experience tells me that multiple route designators tend to confuse the average user. My plea is that mappers ensure that the principal route designation (which every numbered highway has, at least in the eyes of police and DOTs) comes first in the way ref tag, so that simple maps, nav systems and info systems can be created that "say it as briefly as possible". That way, you can have your "everything" maps and I can have my relatively "simple" info systems for ordinary folks to use. As a professional traffic engineer I know MUTCD moderately well. The Feds and AASHTO do a good job of imposing some degree of consistency on the 50 banana republics (sorry, the US states). ;) But MUTCD is not written as a mapping tool, nor as a design document for nav systems or traffic info systems. It's a useful guide to what we traffic engineers are supposed to hang on poles and gantries. In OSM, the community decides what to map, and my hope is to influence mappers to meet the diverse needs of many different user groups. Later today I'll be picking up my rental car from O'Hare and (over the holiday) driving the Kennedy, the Eden, and the Dan Ryan, etc. Like you, I'm a relative stranger to Chicago, and I'd prefer to know them as I-90 and I-94. This is why we (if Castle Rock were the Illinois 511 contractor) would reference a crash on the Dan Ryan as "On I-90 (Dan Ryan Expressway) between Exit 53 (Canalport Avenue) and Exit 52 (Roosevelt Road) look out for a crash ..." We try to satisfy both the locals and the visitors. Chicago's radio stations have different goals. But if I didn't mention "Dan Ryan", many of the locals would say "I-90? What is that?" It happens that Chicago's freeways are not cluttered with "rubbish numbers" (thank you Shawn Quinn; not my words). Great job, I-DOT! US 41 has stayed on Lakeshore Drive, where it belongs. Kerry, our aims are not incompatible. I'm happy to defend the way ref tags too. It had been suggested that we might only need relation ref tags. It is true that there is much duplication. My point is that way ref tags tell us the priority order of the shields, and that we can get this no other way. Peter On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Kerry Irons wrote: Peter, The "Miracle Mile" is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe it is a reference for a section of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive (also US 41). Other towns have used this reference to their business district. Note the reference in Billy Joel's "It's Still
Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept
Kerry, Your reference is to "The Magnificent Mile", a hyped up name for Michigan Avenue, Chicago's main shopping street. I happen to be sitting on a plane to Chicago right now and the lady sitting next to me got your meaning immediately. Check out http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/153654226 You say that "map users want to see all the route numbers on a given piece of pavement, not just the ..." principal route. Yet there are many different types of map user, each with different needs and preferences. I had said "We need a way of capturing [*the principal route designator*] in OSM for use in nav systems and info systems, as well as (perhaps) for ridding simple maps of route shield clutter." Note my *"(perhaps)" *and *"simple maps". *I would never suggest that OSM mappers want to be rid of what I risked calling "route shield clutter." But my job is to design map-based info systems for use by as many people as possible, and this experience tells me that multiple route designators tend to confuse the average user. My plea is that mappers ensure that the principal route designation (which every numbered highway has, at least in the eyes of police and DOTs) comes first in the way ref tag, so that simple maps, nav systems and info systems can be created that "say it as briefly as possible". That way, you can have your "everything" maps and I can have my relatively "simple" info systems for ordinary folks to use. As a professional traffic engineer I know MUTCD moderately well. The Feds and AASHTO do a good job of imposing some degree of consistency on the 50 banana republics (sorry, the US states). ;) But MUTCD is not written as a mapping tool, nor as a design document for nav systems or traffic info systems. It's a useful guide to what we traffic engineers are supposed to hang on poles and gantries. In OSM, the community decides what to map, and my hope is to influence mappers to meet the diverse needs of many different user groups. Later today I'll be picking up my rental car from O'Hare and (over the holiday) driving the Kennedy, the Eden, and the Dan Ryan, etc. Like you, I'm a relative stranger to Chicago, and I'd prefer to know them as I-90 and I-94. This is why we (if Castle Rock were the Illinois 511 contractor) would reference a crash on the Dan Ryan as "On I-90 (Dan Ryan Expressway) between Exit 53 (Canalport Avenue) and Exit 52 (Roosevelt Road) look out for a crash ..." We try to satisfy both the locals and the visitors. Chicago's radio stations have different goals. But if I didn't mention "Dan Ryan", many of the locals would say "I-90? What is that?" It happens that Chicago's freeways are not cluttered with "rubbish numbers" (thank you Shawn Quinn; not my words). Great job, I-DOT! US 41 has stayed on Lakeshore Drive, where it belongs. Kerry, our aims are not incompatible. I'm happy to defend the way ref tags too. It had been suggested that we might only need relation ref tags. It is true that there is much duplication. My point is that way ref tags tell us the priority order of the shields, and that we can get this no other way. Peter On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Kerry Irons wrote: > Peter, > > > > The “Miracle Mile” is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe > it is a reference for a section of Chicago’s Lake Shore Drive (also US > 41). Other towns have used this reference to their business district. > Note the reference in Billy Joel’s “It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me.” For > people like myself who visit Chicago, “the Dan Ryan” and “the Eisenhower” > don’t mean much, but I-90 and I-290 appear not only on maps but on exit > signs, wayfinding signs, and mile posts. In the US, FWHA and the MUTCD > have standards for route numbering signs and typically ALL of the routes on > a given piece of pavement show up at key junctions (mile post signs will > only have the primary route, however that was determined). > > > > My point here is that map users want to see all the route numbers on a > given piece of pavement, not just the primary route. While OSM is very > good about capturing all the information in tags, if only one route number > appears at any given zoom level, those using the standard layer will not > see the other routes (they are visible in the MapQuest Open layer). And in > some cases, multiple route number tags apparently cause the OSM Standard > layer rendering to simply not show any route number shields. There is a > section of I-75 near me that is also US-23. In the OSM standard layer, > neither of those route numbers is visible at any zoom level for a 75 mile > stretch of interstate. The same thing happens on US-41/M-28 west of > Marquette, MI until you get to z=13. This is not a “user friendly” view > for map users. > > > > > > Kerry > > > > *From:* Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, December 21, 2013 11:30 PM > *To:* Kerry Irons > *Cc:* Tod Fitch; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; E
Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept
Kerry Irons wrote: > Peter, > > > > The "Miracle Mile" is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe > it is a reference for a section of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive (also US > 41). > Other towns have used this reference to their business district. Note the > reference in Billy Joel's "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me." For people > like myself who visit Chicago, "the Dan Ryan" and "the Eisenhower" don't > mean much, but I-90 and I-290 appear not only on maps but on exit signs, > wayfinding signs, and mile posts. In the US, FWHA and the MUTCD have > standards for route numbering signs and typically ALL of the routes on a > given piece of pavement show up at key junctions (mile post signs will > only have the primary route, however that was determined). Chicago doesn't have a "Miracle Mile", at least not one that I've heard of, but part of Michigan Avenue is the "Magnificent Mile". Maybe that's what you were thinking of. Alexander ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept
Peter, The "Miracle Mile" is probably an anachronistic reference, but I believe it is a reference for a section of Chicago's Lake Shore Drive (also US 41). Other towns have used this reference to their business district. Note the reference in Billy Joel's "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me." For people like myself who visit Chicago, "the Dan Ryan" and "the Eisenhower" don't mean much, but I-90 and I-290 appear not only on maps but on exit signs, wayfinding signs, and mile posts. In the US, FWHA and the MUTCD have standards for route numbering signs and typically ALL of the routes on a given piece of pavement show up at key junctions (mile post signs will only have the primary route, however that was determined). My point here is that map users want to see all the route numbers on a given piece of pavement, not just the primary route. While OSM is very good about capturing all the information in tags, if only one route number appears at any given zoom level, those using the standard layer will not see the other routes (they are visible in the MapQuest Open layer). And in some cases, multiple route number tags apparently cause the OSM Standard layer rendering to simply not show any route number shields. There is a section of I-75 near me that is also US-23. In the OSM standard layer, neither of those route numbers is visible at any zoom level for a 75 mile stretch of interstate. The same thing happens on US-41/M-28 west of Marquette, MI until you get to z=13. This is not a "user friendly" view for map users. Kerry From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 11:30 PM To: Kerry Irons Cc: Tod Fitch; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept Kerry I'm not sure that I follow your drift here, Kerry. Can you elaborate about the Miracle Mile? Peter :) On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Kerry Irons wrote: All, If you look at the guidance in the US from FHWA and the MUTCD, all route numbers are to used in signage. You never know who is using a given piece of pavement by following which route number. Just because the locals might call it "the Miracle Mile" doesn't mean that is the appropriate choice for shield priority. Kerry From: Peter Davies [mailto:peter.dav...@crc-corp.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 8:53 PM To: Tod Fitch Cc: Kerry Irons; Martijn van Exel; OSM US Talk; Richard Welty; Eric Fischer Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept Tod, I found a common stretch of CA 108 and CA 120 between Oakdale and Yosemite Junction in Tuolumne County. I'm not sure if that's the double-banded section you mention. As Eric Fischer said, there are some ways that carry two approximately equal routes, and my suggestion was that they would both still feature in the way ref tags, in this case "CA 108;CA 120" (which is in fact what OSM currently has for these ways). I agree that there is no obvious precedence order in this case other than "highest system, lowest number" (which is again what OSM has at present). My suggestion was (and is) that if we need to have multiple refs, because two or more routes are about equal, the "way refs" be listed in shield posting order, starting with the top or left-most shield. Without going there, we won't know if that is CA 108 or CA 120, or whether it varies. Since both are about equal it probably doesn't matter, because (as you say) both should probably be mentioned. My interest was more in what Shawn Quinn calls "rubbish numbers", such as US and state route refs multi-banded on an interstate. I think he argues that we need them all. I don't think that's in doubt, either. But do we need them all to be listed in every way ref, or would it be sufficient to have them in the relation refs, with the first listed shield(s) emphasized in the way refs? I think the answer is already emerging. Way ref tags with complete lists of overlapping secondary route designators are here to stay. Personally I'm happy about this so long as the first signed route number(s), starting from the top and/or left of the direction signs and route confirmation signs, come first in the way ref lists (as they usually do in OSM already). So, I 465 should be listed before US 31, or IN 67, say, as it's given greater precedence in the signing. In other words, most people probably think that Interstate 465 is Interstate 465, and not US 31 or IN 67. So we should list it first (as we almost always do). Sound fair? Peter On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Tod Fitch wrote: On Dec 21, 2013, at 2:35 PM, Peter Davies wrote: Kerry It's also perfectly fine if we want to keep all of the secondary designators in the ways' r
Re: [Talk-us] Prioritizing multi-banded route designators (multiple overlaps) on ways: the "Principal route designator" concept
Same thing that I did with OSM's "I 35;I 80" around Des Moines, Iowa, correcting it to "I 80;I 35" a few months ago. The exit numbers and mileposts confirm that this route has always been seen as I 80 by IADOT and Iowa State Patrol, since its first stretches were opened in 1958-59. http://www.iowadot.gov/50thpages/pdf/interstatemap.pdf This is the same 12-month period in which my dad took me for a drive on Britain's first motorway, the M6 Preston Bypass, on the week that it opened in 1959. I was 8 years old and already knew that I would "build motorways." Later Sir James Drake (the project engineer) who was knighted for his motorway building, became my top boss at Lancashire County Council and sponsored my application to qualify as a Chartered Engineer. I remember him shaking my hand at the County Surveyor's annual dinner in 1973. Castle Rock has worked continuously with IADOT since 1985. When we first set up Iowa's Condition Acquisition and Reporting System (CARS) in 1998, we had treated the common section as I 35 (assuming a "highest system, lowest number" rule), and Iowa DOT staff asked us to correct this to I 80. It remains I 80 in Iowa's CARS system to this day. We use it all across the country as an example of a "rule exception" in discussions with other states. I 80 is the principal (i.e., first posted) Interstate route on the common section of these two roads. James and I seem to agree that such routes should be listed first in OSM's way ref tags in order to show their special significance. I don't think that this needs to be in any way controversial. It seems to me common sense that OSM should accurately reflect the road's signing details. Posting roads with their "Highest system, lowest number" route first is a good first approximation for armchair mapping, but it cannot be used to overrule facts on the ground. Peter Davies Castle Rock Associates Portland, Oregon On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:33 PM, James Mast wrote: > I know awhile back I updated the ref tag on the short segment of I-77 that > has I-74 cosigned with it from "ref=I 74;I 77" to "ref=I 77;I 74" because > along that segment, they are using I-77's mile markers. Plus it helps to > know that I-77 was there long before the two I-74 signs (one NB and one SB) > were added along it. > > So, at least when it comes to Interstates with 2 or more Interstates > posted on a segment, you should always put the one that the mile > markers/exit numbers are based off of first in the way ref tag. > > -James > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
