Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
On 2015-09-06 09:49, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote: As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is frowned upon to tag for a routing engine. There is often confusion about the "don't tag for the x" rule. We must not tag *misleadingly* for a *specific* x. We absolutely should consider the needs of all x's in existence. [1] [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer -- m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
On 9/6/15 12:49 PM, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote: > I am the editor in question. > > The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I > do not necessarily agree. > > However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification > may warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously > connects mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just > re-classed as trunk a few days ago) connects larger towns and cities. > > I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS: > using HFCS has never been a normal practice for OSM. i don't think it's rational to impose HFCS derived classification on the US road grid at this point in time. in any case, it is something that should be discussed before changing tags. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
My general rule of thumb for highway tagging in rural Kansas is as follows. If I know nothing else about the road I start off with US highway = primary, Kansas highway = secondary and county roads = tertiary. Then adjust as needed. For example. K-10 between Lawrence and Olathe [1] is controlled access, dual carriageway with a 70 MPH speed limit so I would probably bump it from secondary to trunk although I'm not sure I can come up with a reason why its current tag of motorway is wrong so... sure, I'm ok with that. Another exception: I downgraded US 24 to secondary and upgraded K-82 to primary between Leonardville and Riley [2] because that leg of US 24 through Leonardville has a lower speed limit, no shoulder whatsoever and is just generally a less maintained road than K-82. I suppose there is some degree of subjectivity to the "adjust as needed" step and things won't always match up with government opinion but I feel like the end result is a better representation of how the roads are actually built and maintained in the real world. Toby [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/38.9499/-95.0109 [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/39.3301/-96.8853 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
Sorry to start another thread on this but I just had an exchange with another mapper here in Kansas that could use some more opinions. I recently reclassified US 24 west of Manhattan, KS from trunk down to primary. NE2 had bumped it up to trunk a long time ago and I never felt that this was right and finally got around to changing it back. But tonight another user in Kansas commented on this changeset[1] saying that it should stay at trunk until it hits US 281 in western Kansas because it is classified as a "Principal Arterial" by the functional highway classification system (HFCS). And indeed, the HFCS page on the OSM wiki[2] does say that rural principal arterials should be tagged as trunk Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to taking some hints from an external source but my big problem with this particular case is that US 81 (which US 24 intersects, at [3]) is also tagged as trunk. I don't think this classification is disputed by anyone. But US 81 and US 24 are vastly different roads. US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10 foot shoulders I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random driveways and farm access roads than US 81 although 81 does have some (and hence is definitely not eligible for motorway tagging) You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US 24[4] and US 81[5]. In my opinion, if these two roads are tagged with the same classification then something is wrong with the classification system. I'm not sure exactly what HFCS takes into consideration or who wrote that wiki page but this doesn't seem right to me. Can someone offer a defense of the wiki page or should it be changed? This user has also upgraded a lot of unpaved county roads in eastern Kansas to secondary because of HFCS which also strikes me as wrong. You can clearly see where he has done this at zoom level 9 [6]. As I noted in the changeset discussion, this led me to encounter a "Warning: road may flood" sign on a dirt road tagged as secondary which just seems crazy to me. Thoughts? Toby [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33282153 [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System [3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/39.3638/-97.6710 [4] http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yTCyYGiyodDhje5mk4CRBQ/photo [5] http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/m3iNsipw17_jR0FJPWrcFQ/photo [6] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=9/39.1162/-95.5811 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
On 9/6/2015 1:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote: US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10 foot shoulders I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random driveways and farm access roads than US 81 although 81 does have some (and hence is definitely not eligible for motorway tagging) You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US 24[4] and US 81[5]. Based on this, it's unlikely the US 24 and US 81 serve the same classification in the road network, and should be different highway tags. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
On 9/6/15 6:26 AM, Paul Norman wrote: > On 9/6/2015 1:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote: >> US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders >> US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10 >> foot shoulders >> >> I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random driveways and farm >> access roads than US 81 although 81 does have some (and hence is >> definitely not eligible for motorway tagging) >> >> You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US >> 24[4] and US 81[5]. > > Based on this, it's unlikely the US 24 and US 81 serve the same > classification in the road network, and should be different highway tags. > i tend to agree. while the HFCS is worthwhile as an advisory, when it differs significantly from observation, we need to stick with what we see on the ground. i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for informational purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
I am the editor in question. The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do not necessarily agree. However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously connects mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just re-classed as trunk a few days ago) connects larger towns and cities. I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS: Interstate: Motorway Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk Principal Arterial: Trunk/Primary [1] Minor Arterial: Primary Major Collector: Secondary/Tertiary Minor Collector: Tertiary [1] In rural areas, “Other Freeway and Expressway” is a subset of “Principal Arterial,” and may be marked on official state maps as the latter. If a roadway is fully controlled access, the Motorway tag should be used. For urban areas, I would not make any major changes: Interstate: Motorway Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk Principal Arterial: Primary Minor Arterial: Secondary Major Collector/Minor Collector: Tertiary Generally, I have noticed that many urban roads will “drop class” when they transition into rural roads. Under the guidance above, most of these roadways will maintain a consistent type in OSM. As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is frowned upon to tag for a routing engine. I would be happy to review the existing roadways myself to determine if they should be downgraded per any updated guidance; however, a bulk revert or manual cleanup without updated guidance will also be frowned upon. From: Richard Fairhurst Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 10:43 AM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list Richard Welty wrote: > i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for > informational purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification. In the UK we use the designation= tag to record official classifications which might not be reflected in the highway type - I'd commend it. Toby Murray wrote: > This user has also upgraded a lot of unpaved county roads in > eastern Kansas to secondary because of HFCS which also strikes > me as wrong. You can clearly see where he has done this at > zoom level 9 [6]. Ye gods. That's horrid, and breaks every single car and bicycle router in existence. Are those changesets cleanly revertable, or do we need a manual fixup? Richard___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
Richard Welty wrote: > i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for > informational purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification. In the UK we use the designation= tag to record official classifications which might not be reflected in the highway type - I'd commend it. Toby Murray wrote: > This user has also upgraded a lot of unpaved county roads in > eastern Kansas to secondary because of HFCS which also strikes > me as wrong. You can clearly see where he has done this at > zoom level 9 [6]. Ye gods. That's horrid, and breaks every single car and bicycle router in existence. Are those changesets cleanly revertable, or do we need a manual fixup? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-road-classification-disagreement-this-time-with-HFCS-in-Kansas-tp5854071p5854085.html Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
Richie Kennedy wrote:
> As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you
> it is frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
Given that Mr Fairhurst has been involved in OSM since month 4 in 2004, he
is quite aware of what is frowned upon and what isn't, but he thanks you for
your kind, if slightly patronising, concern.
Following international common practices is not tagging for the router, or
the renderer, or the autonomous self-guided robot or whatever. It is an
essential part of a mass collaborative project, and is the only way from
preventing OSM descending into an anarchy of local exceptions.
It is universal that, in developed countries such as the US, Canada or any
part of Western Europe, a highway=secondary is assumed paved _unless_ a
surface (or similar) tag is used.
Piling up local exceptions justified by obscure wiki pages (and, to be
honest, you can justify classifying US roads any old way given the morass of
contradictory wiki pages) makes for data that no-one can sanely use. I
probably do more post-processing of highway tags than anyone else and even I
draw the line at "if (highway=='secondary' && last_editor=='route56') {
surface=UNKNOWN; } else { surface=PAVED; }". This is a collaborative
project; it only works if we pull in the same direction.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-road-classification-disagreement-this-time-with-HFCS-in-Kansas-tp5854071p5854090.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
