Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

2017-10-06 Thread Richie Kennedy 
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

2017-10-06 Thread Richie Kennedy 
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

2017-10-05 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:
>
> To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade 
> intersections..
> I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the US. To my mind it's 
> roads with
> no at-grade intersections but not built to interstate standards / not having 
> an interstate
> designation... I'm not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really 
> like to understand.

If that were the case, then we'd have lots of partially controlled
access routes (i.e. no driveways, but at-grade intersections) to
change to "primary." IMHO, routes with partial control of access
should be classified as "trunk" and any highway with fully controlled
access (all cross roads are grade separated) should be classified as
"motorway," including those routes that are not quite to interstate
standards.

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.

___
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)

2015-09-20 Thread Richie Kennedy 
I'm mostly with you on this, except, for the four lower classes, which 
generally speaking the following observations with tagging have been true:



Interstate/Freeway (only): Motorway
Expressway (only): Trunk


As I read the wiki, there are multiple wiki sections (not just the HFCS 
page) that indicate that the trunk tag is *NOT* exclusively applied to 
limited access roads. e.g. the "US" entry in this table --  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence


Surface expressway: A relatively high-speed divided road (at least 40 MPH 
with a barrier or median separating each direction of traffic), with a 
limited amount of intersections and driveways; **or** a major intercity 
highway. This includes many U.S. Highways (that do not parallel an 
Interstate) and some state highways.


[emphasis added]

Generally speaking, that's the TL;DR of 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging


To me, "unpaved" includes gravel surfaced roads (which is the predominant 
surface type of non-state highways in rural Kansas). I'm not inclined to 
mark every gravel road in Kansas as 'track' 



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

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

2015-09-05 Thread Richie Kennedy 
This issue has been brought up in the AARoads forum in addition to on talk-us. 
It is the general consensus of the AARoads members that fully controlled access 
highways should be tagged as motorway, and that roads with a mix of full and 
partial controlled access segments are not as a whole partial controlled access 
highways – the segments that clearly have fully controlled access should still 
be tagged as “motorway.”
I have also stated in the past, and will re-iterate again, that I believe that 
*any* fully-controlled access roadway should be tagged as motorway, including 
fully controlled access super-2 and super-4 roadways.
As to what constitutes a fully controlled access segment of roadway, that can 
sometimes be a judgement call. In the current situation, it has been noted that 
WSDOT has cleanly delineated between the fully controlled and partially 
controlled segments of WA 500 with signage and on maps. Taking an example from 
my home turf, KS 7: between Olathe and Bonner Springs, the road alternates 
between at-grade interchanges and interchanges. There is no signage to 
indicated that controlled access is beginning or ending, and KDOT maps do not 
show and difference between fully controlled and partially controlled 4-lane 
non-interstates. My rule of thumb is usually at least three grade separations, 
two if I know there are future plans to convert nearby at-grade intersections 
to grade seperations. There are four interchanges at 119th Street, College 
Blvd, K-10, and Prairie Star Parkway north of Olathe, followed by a private 
at-grade, an interchange at 83rd, and a restricted access at-grade at 75th 
(left and right turns permitted onto 75th, traffic on 75th can only turn right 
onto K-7). North of 75th, there’s an interchange at Shawnee Mission Parkway, a 
grade seperation with Clear Creek Parkway, and an recently completed 
interchange at Johnson Drive. Past Johnson Drive, there are two signalized 
at-grade intersections at 47th and 43rd Streets, followed by the Kansas River 
bridge and two more interchanges at K-32 and at Nettleton Ave. North of 
Nettleton, all intersections are at-grade except for State Avenue, which is a 
six-ramp partial cloverleaf.
The 119th to Prairie Star Parkway segment clearly is a controlled access 
segment, with 4 interchanges. Because 83rd Street is in between two at-grades, 
that interchange is considered part of a partially controlled access segment 
and is left as a trunk. The SMP/Johnson Drive segment only has two 
interchanges, but with the Clear Creek Parkway separation between the two 
interchanges, there is sufficient reason to mark this up as a controlled access 
segment. The K-32/Nettleton interchanges are a little more marginal, but KDOT 
does have future plans to add additional interchanges farther north. Therefore, 
I’m allowing it to be marked as motorway. If there wasn’t any serious plan to 
replace any adjacent at-grade intersections with interchagnes, I would have 
kept it as trunk.
As to the loss of lane data on WA 500, jakeroot has reviewed his edits and has 
stated on AARoads that his removal of the lane data was inadvertant. He does 
appear to support a revert in order to restore the lane data; however, he is 
among those that believe the controlled access segments of WA 500 should be 
tagged as motorway, as noted above.
Richie Kennedy, McLouth KS
OSM/fb/Twitter: route56
www.route56.com___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

2015-09-02 Thread Richie Kennedy 
Revert request opposed. At best, there needs to be additional discussion within 
talk-us regarding this before DWG takes any action.

I am not one of the participants that have edited WA 500 recently; however, 
those that have have brought this up on the AARoads forum. It is the opinion of 
the AA posters that significant segments of upgradable expressways that have 
been upgraded to fully controlled access should be tagged as motorway.

I offer as an example this stretch of Kansas Highway 7 between Bonner Springs 
and Olathe:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33634149

It is 4 lane divided from Lansing to Olathe, and KDOT’s future plan is to 
eventually bring the entire roadway up to freeway standards. I am also 
personally familiar with this roadway. I have verified and marked the 
controlled access segments of K-7 as motorway, and the partially controlled 
access roads as Trunk.

Of note: the interchange at 83rd Street is marked as trunk. There is a at-grade 
intersection with a service road between the 83rd and Prairie Star Parkway 
interchanges. This intersection has, in fact, been overlooked by OSM mappers, 
myself included, in the past. 

Richie Kennedy
McLouth, KS


From: Paul Johnson 
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2:36 AM
To: d...@osmfoundation.org ; OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington.  This is a surface 
expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently has a mix 
of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges.  It appears there is a 
small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start an edit war 
regarding this issue.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

2015-09-02 Thread Richie Kennedy 
[Removing DWG from this reply]

As Richard W indicated, and I agree, alternating sections of fully controlled 
and partially controlled access is a grey area, and thus is a judgment call. 
Both the WA 500 and K-7 examples are judgment calls made by people who have 
observation and knowledge of what’s going on “in the field.”___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Shields are up!

2013-08-12 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:


 1029 and 438 both render shields now. I looked at the existing ref=* tags
 on county roads in Douglas and made shields for everything that is there so
 as you add relations they should appear as expected. I'm not sure this
 county-by-county handling will scale very well though. Might have to put
 some more thought into this...


Is there any way I could upload the shields myself? I do have the ability
to make them.

Right now, the only other Kansas county numbered routes with ref tags in
OSM are in Douglas, Leavenworth, and Linn Counties... but there will be
others (There are none, however, in Sedgwick, Shawnee, Osage, Jefferson,
Johnson, or Miami)
-- 
Richie Kennedy
www.route56.com * richiekenned...@gmail.com
facebook.com/route56 * twitter.com/route56

I'm not crazy. I'm just ahead of my time.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Shields are up!

2013-08-08 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:


 Also, is there a way to fix the Kansas Turnpike shield. The KTA shield is
 not rendered as a cutout anywhere, even on guide signs.


 It was a style choice by Phil to do all shields as cutouts. I think it
 looks pretty good and having one that isn't a cutout may look odd... or
 not. I don't know. But yes, it can of course be changed.


Phil may want to use this version as a basis for the Turnpike:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kansas_Turnpike2.svg
I uploaded that to commons last night. The version currently posted looks
like a poor tracing of a low-res bitmap.


 [As an aside, the 'N' and 'E' on Douglas County roads do *not* stand for
 'North' or 'East,']


 TIGER didn't get the memo apparently


I'm more worried about flesh-and-blood mappers not getting the memo and
causing an inadvertent edit war. ;)

-- 
Richie Kennedy
www.route56.com * richiekenned...@gmail.com
facebook.com/route56 * twitter.com/route56

I'm not crazy. I'm just ahead of my time.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Shields are up!

2013-08-07 Thread Richie Kennedy 
Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but I'm having trouble getting
county road shields in my area to render.

Example:
http://tile.openstreetmap.us/osmus_shields/preview.html#16/39.0031/-95.3842

I have made County Road 1029 a relation and, using another county road as a
template, set the network as US:KS:Douglas (and have also tried US:KS:CR)

Also, is there a way to fix the Kansas Turnpike shield. The KTA shield is
not rendered as a cutout anywhere, even on guide signs.

[As an aside, the 'N' and 'E' on Douglas County roads do *not* stand for
'North' or 'East,']

-- 
Richie Kennedy
www.route56.com * richiekenned...@gmail.com
facebook.com/route56 * twitter.com/route56

I'm not crazy. I'm just ahead of my time.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

2013-06-30 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Toby Murray toby.mur...@gmail.com wrote:


 Yeah, to me the wiki reads that to be a motorway it should be dual
 carriageway except in exceedingly rare circumstances. That's how I've been
 tagging.


That is not how I read it, especially since I do not see fully-controlled
access two lane facilities as exceedingly rare.


 So then we come back to the question of what exactly is trunk if it isn't
 used for these kinds of roads?


I have been using the Highway Functional Classification System (Wiki:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System)
as a boilerplate in Kansas.

For Urban Other freeways and expressways and Rural Principal Arterials,
I go back to my controlled access rule of thumb. If it is controlled
access, I tag as motorway, otherwise, it's tagged as trunk. If I were to go
strictly on HFCS, K-10 between Lawrence and Lenexa, US 59 between Lawrence
and Ottawa, and US 75 between Topeka and US 56 would all be trunks, even
though all of those facilities are clearly 4-lane freeways.

FTR, I have not found a fully controlled-access facility classified as
secondary arterial or lower on any official DOT HFCS map.


 On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:58 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 Yeah, trunk seems more appropriate to me, motorway seems to make me think
 of a limited access roadway with a statistically insignificant chance of
 getting hit head on.

 I wouldn't considered a freeway to have a statistically insignificant
chance of getting hit head-on. Depending on traffic, and the demographics
of the drivers, you could wind up having a better change of a median
crossover collision than a head on on a super-two.

-- 
Richie Kennedy
www.route56.com * richiekenned...@gmail.com
facebook.com/route56 * twitter.com/route56

I'm not crazy. I'm just ahead of my time.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

2013-06-26 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 On Jun 25, 2013 9:51 PM, Chris Lawrence lordsu...@gmail.com wrote:

  IMO the first criterion I'd look for is: does this road carry the same
  restrictions associated with a freeway in the state in question?  For
  example, in many states, freeways have posted access restriction signs
  limiting use by pedestrians, bikes, low-cc motorized vehicles, and
  sometimes farm equipment.  If it does, it's a motorway, at least where
  those restrictions apply.  If it doesn't, it's not.

 That would mean most freeways including interstates in the west, with the
 exception of limited sections in the bay area, southwestern California,
 central Portland and urban Seattle wouldn't be motorways, as restricting
 pedestrians and bicycles is unusual in 34 states.

I don't think Chris is suggesting that posted access restrictions should be
a sole criterion for tagging a highway as motorway.

In Kansas, Signs indicating access restrictions are posted on the on-ramps
to interstates and some (but *not* all) non-interstate freeways. K-10, for
instance, has posted access restrictions on the Douglas County segment, but
not on the Johnson County segment. Both sections of K-10 in question,
however, are clearly freeway, and properly tagged as motorway in OSM.

Back to the question at hand (how to treat super-two facilities): While
KDOT *state* maps do not distinguish between 2-lane controlled access and
non-controlled access facilities (and, since 2010, the same applies to
non-interstate 4-lane facilities,) *county* level maps published after 2007
do show controlled-access facilities, regardless of the number of lanes.
Those county maps show US 169 between Chanute and Iola as a
controlled-access facility. Thus, it is properly tagged as motorway under
Chris's second suggestion (If it has full access control, it's a motorway.
 If not, it's not one.)
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

2013-06-26 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:


 But that goes back to are we trying to be consistent within OSM, or are
 we trying to second guess the renderer to look like some other publisher's
 map?  Or to put it another way, Why are we trying to tag for the renderer
 in Kansas?



The argument that I (and Chris) are making is that a two lane freeway is
properly tagged motorway (and Chris takes it further, saying that doing so
*is* consistent within OSM)

I'm not going to tag a roadway as motorway unless I'm positive that it
qualifies. It also helps to have something to back it up with.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)

2013-06-26 Thread Richie Kennedy 
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

 I get that, but looking at how the tag is documented (
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Motorway), if it's not divded, it's
 not a motorway.  Perhaps Richard or Phil could chime in again on whether
 it's time to update the wiki or update the tag.


The way I look at the Wiki page as it is currently written, although
motorways are usually divided facilities, the wording of the page *does*
allow for a fully controlled-access Super 2. In fact, the documentation
itself states how to tag such a facility.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us