Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway
[forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error] -Original Message- From: Richie Kennedy Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM To: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Single carriageway grade separated? Trunk. Disagree vehemently. I do not believe that a Super-Two should be classified differently than its four-lane counterparts > Dual carriageway, at-grade intersections but otherwise freeway like? Trunk. It seems the question in this thread is “Where does a Motorway end and a Trunk begin” where there is a stretch containing at-grade intersections between two segments that could otherwise qualify as motorway. In my neck of the woods, we have Watkins Drive, where by a consent decree, there are intersections and traffic lights. There is a clear demarcation between Motorway and Trunk - the speed limit drops to 45 MPH before the non-Motorway stretch, then goes back to 55 MPH when controlled access continues. Therefore, I would transition from motorway to trunk at the speed limit transition Then I also have K-7 between Olathe and Bonner Springs, where KDOT has incrementally upgraded the road. From Olathe heading north, there are four interchanges (119th, College, K-10, Prairie Star Parkway) an driveway intersection, an interchange at 83rd, an intersection at 75th, interchanges for Shawnee Mission Parkway and Johnson Drive, intersectons at 47th and 43rd, and Interchanges at K-32 and Nettleton. I would mark off as Motorway from the PSP interchange south and from 43rd north to Nettleton, and in the middle section including the Johnson and SMP interchanges. As 83rd is a single interchange between two intersections, it would not be given a Motorway designation. First, I would look for any field-verifiable transition (e.g. pavement or speed limit changesj between an interchange and intersection. If there isn’t one, I’d be inclined to either make the transition at the start of a turn lane or at the end of an acceleration lane. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] I think I got this right...
On Sunday, January 22, 2017 at 6:24 AM, Paul Johnson wrote > It would be easier to verify by using forward in the child relations > exclusively. Then it will validate as a loop, or it won't, > and the gap becomes immediately apparent. As tagged, most tools (JOSM > included) won't "get" it. In order to automatically validate, no tag should be necessary. However, the GUI in the JOSM relation editor will still show be able to show the complete loop or lack thereof, making for a easy manual valication/override. The retention of the directional tags are easier for *human* reference ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] I think I got this right...
Regarding the use of child relations for routes, and what to do about directional roles on beltways, I made some mapping changes to a beltway that happens to be local to me. I took the relation for I-435[1] and “cloned” it into 2 new relations in JOSM[2][3]. I then deleted all ways from the in the relation and added the new relations, turning the old relation into the parent. As 435 is a beltway, I added “(clockwise)” and “(counterclockwise)” to the new relations. Milepost 0 on I-435 is the junction with I-35 at the southwest corner and the mileposts increase going clockwise (and do not reset at the state line) so I used the I-435 bridge over I-35 as my starting point. Starting there, I organized the ways in the clockwise direction in the JOSM relation editor. Once I had created a “loop,” I removed all the other ways from the clockwise relation, then selected the members of the clockwise relation to remove them from the counterclockwise relation. I then sorted out the ways for the counterclockwise direction in the same way. I left the directional roles (i.e. “north,” “south,” “east,” and “west”) intact to represent how the segments on 435 are signed, and changed roles previously marked as “forward” back to directional roles. I also happened to find that I had inadvertently left a gap in the counterclockwise direction in the Johnson County Gateway project. I also noticed someone has previously attempted to note the direction in the “ref” tag. I changed those as well. Aside from the fact that JOSM does not support the use of directional roles, I think the changes should make it cleaner for future mappers. [1]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/62155 [2]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898835 [3]: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6898836 ___ 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] Locations for State of the Map US 2014
Seeing as how the “official” location of the lower 48’s centroid is in north-central Kansas, I’d have to dispute your claim that Tulsa is the closest major metro area. Looks to me that Lincoln, Nebraska would be the closest. There’s also Wichita, Omaha, Topeka, and Kansas City. -- 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. From: Paul Johnson Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 10:19 AM To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list How about Tulsa, Oklahoma? Closest major metro area to the lower 48's centroid. Can't get much more heartland than that.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)
I'm a little late to the party here, but I am involved in this question. I have marked US 169 between Iola and Chanute as Motorway because, although it is a super-two, it is fully controlled access along this segment. I believe this is consistent with the way most commercial map-makers would mark this segment. For example, Rand McNally marks this segment using their freeway symbol with a TWO LANES notation (they also mark US 400 near Neodesha this way, however, it is NOT controlled access, and is properly marked as Trunk in OSM) I would also point out that I-93 in Franconia Notch is also two lanes, with a median barrier separating the lanes. If all super-two facilities are to be labeled as Trunk, then this segment would have to be labeled as Trunk to be consistent. It would, however, confuse the hell out of the general public In reviewing the thread, I noticed someone mentioned Maryland State Highway 90. I do not know the specific characteristics of this highway, but if it is a fully controlled-access facility, I would mark it as motorway. Rand McNally does mark it with the freeway symbol. -- Richie Kennedy___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
