Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Paul Johnson writes: > Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting? That's the crux on the > super-two debate. I would consider at least two lanes each way, > free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the > minimum threshold for motorways. Limited access, at-grade intersections, > single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me. I don't see it as necessary to define non-divided-highway as conflicting or not. In theory, people stay on their side of the yellow line, and it isn't, but in practice, they cross sometimes. The point of divided is of course that they can't cross. And it leads to needing a 2nd lane for passing. I find the notion of super-2 as motorway to be a very minority opinion. Until Richie supported that position, I would not have expected anyone to argue that, and I have not seen anyone else take that position. We do have debates about how far along the primary-motorway continuum a road has to be in order to be tagged as trunk, and I think that's where there's a fair bit of fuzz (how many driveways, distance between intersections, etc. -- e.g., 1/10 miles ok, 10/mile not, and it's hard somewhere in between). Does anybody else think that a non-divided highway with one lane in each direction, even if controlled access, should be tagged motorway rather than trunk? signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Fwd: Trunk
t; > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow > > > shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed > > > limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be > > > if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway > > > encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is > > > not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade. > > > > > > > This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in > Vancouver, WA; > > and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk > for that > > whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated > intersections and > > abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate > intersections at > > 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling > any part of that > > a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because > it does > > significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, > literally opposite what > > you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short). > > > > Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, > but not quite > > a freeway. > > -- next part -- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > > us/attachments/20171006/c655e709/attachment.html> > > > Like many topics on this mailing list, this topic keeps popping up from > time to time and never gets resolved. When I first joined OSM about three > years ago, I read the Wiki topics about road classifications, including > those specific to the US. There are a lot of comments on there, going back > many years. The issue was not resolved then, and it never gets resolved > every time it is brought up on the mailing lists. In my opinion, this > issue is so broad and varied, a consensus will never be reached this way. > I believe a different procedure will be required. > > Mark > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:59:40 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > Message-ID: >g...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy > > wrote: > > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full > > > NE2 > > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is > > > properly tagged as motorway. > > > > Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two? > > > > I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a > controlled > access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both > directions, > typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances > to > facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas). > > My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic > > is > > grade separated. > > > > Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting? That's the crux on the > super-two > debate. I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, > controlled access, > and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways. Limited > access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more > characteristic of trunks to me. > > > > I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has > > at-grade opposing traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and > > Rutland, Vermont. > > Access is fully controlled, but there is no grade separation between > > opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on steep grades, but > > passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and level > > sections.) > > > > I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly > because > a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 > km of > motorway largely due to terrain limitations. There's a few similar > situations with > driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into > bona-fide > interstates in Utah. And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through > the > drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's > entire three state > run. So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made > to > ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point > couldn't be > properly eliminated. > > I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this > > particular > > fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the > > tagging seen in > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly > > nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that > > you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that > > you can put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about > > placing a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no > > useful information to a driver. > > > > It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a > > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow > > shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed > > limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be > > if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway > > encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is > > not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade. > > > > This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in > Vancouver, WA; > and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for > that > whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and > abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate > intersections at > 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any > part of that > a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it > does > significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally > opposite what > you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short). > > Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but > not quite >
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Thanks all for your input. With this advice in mind, and my own thinking / opinion, I wrote the a diary entry which I hope will spark further debate :) https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/42450 Best Martijn On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy >> wrote: >> > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 >> > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly >> > tagged as motorway. >> >> Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two? >> > > I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a > controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway > operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be > additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at > toll plazas). > > My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic >> is >> grade separated. >> > > Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting? That's the crux on > the super-two debate. I would consider at least two lanes each way, > free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the > minimum threshold for motorways. Limited access, at-grade intersections, > single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me. > > >> I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has >> at-grade opposing >> traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont. >> Access is fully controlled, but there is >> no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on >> steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight >> and >> level sections.) >> > > I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, > mostly because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade > out of over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations. There's > a few similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor > road going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah. And of course, the > traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the > only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run. So there > is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure > traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't > be properly eliminated. > > I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this >> particular >> fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the >> tagging seen >> in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly >> nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that >> you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you >> can >> put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing >> a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful >> information to a driver. >> > > It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is >> a >> motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders >> (not >> necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads >> in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk >> roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving, >> and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to >> drivers >> of a downgrade. >> > > This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in > Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really > should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade > separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after > the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade > separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until > something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does > significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally > opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so > short). > > Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, > but not quite a freeway. > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy > wrote: > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly > > tagged as motorway. > > Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two? > I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas). My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic > is > grade separated. > Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting? That's the crux on the super-two debate. I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways. Limited access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me. > I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has > at-grade opposing > traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont. > Access is fully controlled, but there is > no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on > steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight > and > level sections.) > I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations. There's a few similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah. And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run. So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't be properly eliminated. I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this > particular > fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the > tagging seen > in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly > nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that > you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can > put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing > a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful > information to a driver. > It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders > (not > necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads > in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk > roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving, > and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers > of a downgrade. > This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short). Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but not quite a freeway. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy wrote: > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly > tagged as motorway. Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two? My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic is grade separated. I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has at-grade opposing traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont. Access is fully controlled, but there is no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and level sections.) And I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has at-grade crossing traffic. (Example: Taconic Parkway east of the Hudson in eastern New York. Dual-carriageway for the entire length, and all crossings with major roads are elevated, but there are occasional minor roads and driveways that cross at grade.) I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the tagging seen in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful information to a driver. It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade. It would bother me a little to have either of these roads labeled 'primary'. It would bother me a lot more to have either one labeled 'motorway'. And the current tagging of Taconic Parkway offers the worst of both worlds. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was > NE2. In this group, I find your opinion to be strongly expressed; however, I do not find consensus to be clear and convincing. OTOH, in the AARoads forum, I would argue the consensus opinion would be clear and convincing in favor of my position. > That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith. OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the classification. I would consider that to be bad faith. Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral changes to the map. I will make an effort to explain my opinion this weekend. I do need time to collect my thoughts and put them to a keyboard. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richie Kennedy wrote: > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > > I'm with Paul here. To be motorway, there are three critical > > characteristics: > > > > divided > > >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible) > > limited access > > > > If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway. (I gather > > there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all > > those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception. But if > > it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.) > > > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly > tagged as motorway. So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was NE2. > I will also share publically what I have already > shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled > access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an > invitation to an edit war. > That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I'm with Paul here. To be motorway, there are three critical > characteristics: > > divided > >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible) > limited access > > If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway. (I gather > there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all > those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception. But if > it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.) > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2 defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly tagged as motorway. I will also share publically what I have already shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an invitation to an edit war. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Richie Kennedy writes: > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> Alternatively, a single >> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only >> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma). Essentially, almost a motorway >> but not quite there. > > I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully > controlled access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead > of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the > primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification. I'm with Paul here. To be motorway, there are three critical characteristics: divided >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible) limited access If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway. (I gather there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception. But if it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.) To answer Martijn's question, I also agree with Paul that "trunk" is something that has a substantial part of the feel of a motorway. It might be only one lane in each direction (in NE we do not use the term super two), it might not be really divided, and it might have occasional driveways (at most one every quarter mile on average?) or at-grade intersections with lights every few miles. We should realize that the current tags are the result of a long historical process, including a few mappers that had a minority few that there should be more higher-classification roads, and did massive amounts of armchair retagging. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02
The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376, is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things happening in the openstreetmap world: http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/ Enjoy! weeklyOSM? who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages where?: https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us