Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Okay folks. Coming back from not even 48 hours camping and this thread has exploded. I don't think it benefits anyone to continue in this way. Valuable insights get lost in the sheer volume of email; arguments are being repeated. I am dedicating the next Many Mappy Minutes (our monthly-ish online hangout) to discuss road classification. I proposed November 15 5:30 PT in an earlier email to this group. I invite you all to join then. In the mean time, if you would like to have a more interactive discussion, please join IRC or Slack and continue the discussion there. Martijn On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Nathan Mills wrote: > In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag > importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary. > Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always > been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to use it > more like motorway but for divided highways and people who want it to mean > more primary than primary. > > That's why we're still taking about it now, long after the usage of other > highway tag values has long been settled. The closest thing to a decision > that was ever made was NE2's unilateral mass edit, some of which has been > reverted, some of which hasn't. Without consensus that the tagging is wrong > and not just the unilateral decision, I'm not going to go out of my way to > revert his trunk changes on ways I'm not otherwise editing large portions > of. It's not a nice thing to do. It's got nothing to do with thinking that > things should be that way and everything to do with not being a jackass who > unilaterally imposes their will on the whole community. > > -Nathan > > On October 15, 2017 1:40:16 AM EDT, Bradley White < > theangrytom...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag >> fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, >> why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag >> altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? >> >> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson >> wrote: >>> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying to document how things are on the ground or how things are actually connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway and a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97. If we're going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost everything into trunk. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Keep hitting send too soon. Personally, I find what's on the ground to be >>> more useful than the connections. Game theory and any routing engine can >>> figure out the connections. But knowing what's a stupid rural road with an >>> overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is >>> more useful. If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or >>> Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag >>> things is the most prominent road. I care more about what *actually is a >>> big road*. Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East >>> Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par >>> with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer >>> Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through. Calling it a >>> trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for >>> what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest >>> route through the east Cascades frontier. Primary is definitely ample for >>> that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem >>> to Reno. >>> >> >> -- >> >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> >> > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ___ > 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
In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary. Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to use it more like motorway but for divided highways and people who want it to mean more primary than primary. That's why we're still taking about it now, long after the usage of other highway tag values has long been settled. The closest thing to a decision that was ever made was NE2's unilateral mass edit, some of which has been reverted, some of which hasn't. Without consensus that the tagging is wrong and not just the unilateral decision, I'm not going to go out of my way to revert his trunk changes on ways I'm not otherwise editing large portions of. It's not a nice thing to do. It's got nothing to do with thinking that things should be that way and everything to do with not being a jackass who unilaterally imposes their will on the whole community. -Nathan On October 15, 2017 1:40:16 AM EDT, Bradley White wrote: >If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag >fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, >why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag >altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? > >>On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson ursamundi.org> wrote: >>> >>> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we >trying to >>> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually >>> connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend >Parkway and >>> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97. If >we're >>> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost >>> everything into trunk. >>> >> >> >>Keep hitting send too soon. Personally, I find what's on the ground >to be >>more useful than the connections. Game theory and any routing engine >can >>figure out the connections. But knowing what's a stupid rural road >with an >>overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway >is >>more useful. If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada >or >>Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some >toolbag >>things is the most prominent road. I care more about what *actually >is a >>big road*. Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East >>Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on >par >>with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer >>Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through. Calling it >a >>trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation >for >>what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National >Forest >>route through the east Cascades frontier. Primary is definitely ample >for >>that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like >Salem >>to Reno. > >___ >Talk-us mailing list >Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Yes, on more than one occasion back in the mists of time before armchair mappers had spread the lanes and other condition tags widely I found some pretty shitty US highways labeled as trunk, not because they are better roads, but because they happen to be long distance through routes. US412 should not be trunk across most of the state of Arkansas. It's mostly a crappy winding route that is actively dangerous for trucks, who should be taking I-49 to I-40 or US71 north to 44 unless their destination is directly along the route. By the network definition, it solidly deserves trunk, but by any other measure it does not, and calling it so drives traffic to places it shouldn't be and makes the map harder to use effectively at a glance. Yesterday(ish) someone asked which maps differentiate expressway vs freeway vs everything else that is paved in their inking styles. I'll answer that with a question. Have you ever seen a US paper map? Until the digital road atlases with topo shading and/or overlays started becoming common in the late 90s basically every official state highway map, chamber of commerce map, gas station map, and road atlas differentiated divided, limited access, undivided paved, and unpaved with styles and paved/unpaved with weight. Sometimes you'd get numbered highways in red and other roads in black (with light grey or dashed lines to mean unpaved, depending on the map) It's long been how US road maps are drawn, so map users here expect that differentiation to exist. Of course, we also expect toll roads to be colored green, but OSM doesn't do that either. (And I'm fine with that, TBH. I don't consider it as important as being able to differentiate between divided and undivided in a relatively simple way.) If someone could explain why primary is insufficient to denote a paved rural road that connects minor population centers far from other routes. Why should US-71 south of Witcherville in Arkansas not be tagged as primary once the divided segment ends? There aren't many US highways of that size with more traffic, but it seems solidly primary to me. Some might make the whole thing a trunk since the route goes through several states and is important enough to be being replaced as money becomes available with I-49. Never mind the four plus hours of driving through little towns on a windy mountain road involved. I'd have gotten in an edit war over it if someone had tried to tag the part north of I-40 a trunk before the freeway was built to Fayetteville and beyond. -Nathan On October 15, 2017 1:27:42 AM EDT, Paul Johnson wrote: >On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson >wrote: >> >> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying >to >> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually >> connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend >Parkway and >> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97. If >we're >> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost >> everything into trunk. >> > > >Keep hitting send too soon. Personally, I find what's on the ground to >be >more useful than the connections. Game theory and any routing engine >can >figure out the connections. But knowing what's a stupid rural road >with an >overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway >is >more useful. If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada >or >Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some >toolbag >things is the most prominent road. I care more about what *actually is >a >big road*. Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East >Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on >par >with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer >Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through. Calling it >a >trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation >for >what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest >route through the east Cascades frontier. Primary is definitely ample >for >that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like >Salem >to Reno. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Bradley White wrote: > The UK/Canada system and the central Europe system both adopt > the tag in a way that makes sense for the road network they > have. We are trying to shoehorn the central European tagging > system into our country when, to me, it makes more sense to > use the UK/Canada system. Just for information, if you wanted to adopt the UK system in the US, you could do that absolutely trivially by defining highway=trunk as those (non-motorway) roads within your National Highway System. That's pretty much analogous to how it's used here in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States) Richard -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:40:16 -0700 Bradley White wrote: > If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag > fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, > why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag > altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? Because we can't. WA-290 at Starr Road is two paved lanes wide, with 12-foot lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. It has a speed limit of 45 mph. WA-261 at Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery is two paved lanes wide, with 11-foot lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders. It has a speed limit of 50 mph. Two very similar-looking roads, so they should have similar classifications, right? WA-261 runs from nowhere much to nowhere much, and sees maybe 300 vehicles a day. In contrast, WA-290 is the other major route between the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene metropolitan areas (the main route is the interstate), and sees 13,000 vehicles a day go by. If you omitted WA-261 from a map, almost nobody would notice. If you omitted WA-290, people would discard your map as useless. I've driven both roads, and they *feel* very different. But it's not a difference that I can put into numbers -- at least, not without putting a traffic counter out for a few days. -- Mark ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
Not entirely a bad idea, but runs fundamentally in to the same issue this thread is about, if not moreso. FM 2161 would wind up as a more significant road than OR 22 in such a scenario. Never mind that OR 22 on the west side of Salem, OR is a major 50 MPH expressway going directly to the core of Oregon's capital as an expressway leading west from the Willamette RIver to OR 99W. FM 2161 is a 70 MPH road best known for part of it being US 66 before 1988 when US 66 was retired. I'd still consider OR 22 as a trunk. The old_ref=US 66 portion of ref=FM 2161 would be a judgement call on primary, even if I'd consider most Texas Farm to Market routes as unclassified or tertiary; it's extremely strong historical significiance would be what brings it to as high as secondary or primary in my mind, despite being literally of the same design and barely less significant than US 97 for most of it's length. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Bradley White wrote: > If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag > fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, > why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag > altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? > > >On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson > wrote: > >> > >> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying to > >> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually > >> connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway > and > >> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97. If we're > >> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost > >> everything into trunk. > >> > > > > > >Keep hitting send too soon. Personally, I find what's on the ground to be > >more useful than the connections. Game theory and any routing engine can > >figure out the connections. But knowing what's a stupid rural road with > an > >overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is > >more useful. If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or > >Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag > >things is the most prominent road. I care more about what *actually is a > >big road*. Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East > >Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par > >with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer > >Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through. Calling it a > >trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for > >what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest > >route through the east Cascades frontier. Primary is definitely ample for > >that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem > >to Reno. > > ___ > 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
