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

[James Mast]

Paul, did you ever take 5 seconds to see that the 'lanes' problem on that side 
of the highway could have been caused by an editor bug?  iD is well know for 
hiding tags from people, and normally not alerting people when the merge ways 
that they might be damaging tags.  That is not jakeroot's fault.  You can 
squarely place that blame on the editor.  So, how about go over to the iD 
Github [1] page and report a bug or two dealing with the merging of tags?  
Don't always assume a person is vandalizing because the editor they are using 
is hiding stuff from them.  on that subject, you should apologize to jakeroot 
since the editing program is to blame there. [2]

-James

[1] - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD
[2] - https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/908  

Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:28:00 -0500
From: ba...@ursamundi.org
To: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com
CC: d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

You're looking farther west where it's a work in progress for lanes (not having 
lanes=* tags were better than having incorrect lanes tags, since the number of 
lanes along those very long ways varies in places).  Look between Fourth Plain 
and 54th Avenue, that's where lane tags were hit with a sledgehammer.  JOSM 
obviates that this was clearly jakeroot's doing, no such apology is owed or 
will be granted.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:47 PM, James Mast <rickmastfa...@hotmail.com> wrote:



Paul, 

I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and 
claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong 
Paul.  You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 
comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!!  You, yourself removed them 
Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago.  The history here doesn't 
lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history  The 'lanes' 
tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in 
version 20 edited by you Paul.  The way is now currently on version 23.

If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot 
before you could continue editing anything because of that.  If you didn't 
realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this.

-James (rickmastfan67)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400
To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul,



He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 



Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 



-jack



On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, 
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you 
don't believe me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between 
revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
I could go on...

Chris
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly 
substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on 
detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged and data 
was lost as a result.
Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the
road a trunk in the first place.
Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop.  
jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged 
dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to 
game.
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com>



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


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
  

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

[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

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
>> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
>> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
>> and data was lost as a result.
>>
>
> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made
> the road a trunk in the first place.
>

Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2
style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the
one he was trying to game.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Paul Johnson]

This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall,
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along
WA500.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence  wrote:

> It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if
> you don't believe me.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history
> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision
> 20.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision
> 14.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
>
> I could go on...
>
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>>
 I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
 substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
 on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
 and data was lost as a result.

>>>
>>> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you
>>> made the road a trunk in the first place.
>>>
>>
>> Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
>> desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2
>> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the
>> one he was trying to game.
>>
> --
> Christopher N. Lawrence 
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Chris Lawrence]

It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if
you don't believe me.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.

I could go on...


Chris

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
>>> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
>>> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
>>> and data was lost as a result.
>>>
>>
>> Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made
>> the road a trunk in the first place.
>>
>
> Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
> desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2
> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the
> one he was trying to game.
>
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Jack Burke]

Paul,

He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 

Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 

-jack


On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver
>Mall,
>where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along
>WA500.
>
>On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence 
>wrote:
>
>> It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself
>if
>> you don't believe me.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history
>> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 19 and 20. You submitted
>revision
>> 20.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
>> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted
>revision
>> 14.
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
>> - "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted
>revision 4.
>>
>> I could go on...
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson 
>wrote:

> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a
>fairly
> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good
>12-15 hours
> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got
>merged
> and data was lost as a result.
>

 Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when
>you
 made the road a trunk in the first place.

>>>
>>> Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my
>>> desktop.  jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map
>NE2
>>> style, and merged dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags
>except the
>>> one he was trying to game.
>>>
>> --
>> Christopher N. Lawrence 
>>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

[Chris Lawrence]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly
> substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours
> on detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged
> and data was lost as a result.
>

Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made
the road a trunk in the first place.


Chris

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

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

[James Mast]

Paul, 

I've tried to stay out of this here on talk-us, but being belligerent and 
claiming somebody else removed the 'lanes' tags that didn't do it is just wrong 
Paul.  You honestly owe jakeroot an apology here (and in the Changeset 33669446 
comments) since he didn't remove those tags!!!  You, yourself removed them 
Paul, back in Changeset 32790788 over 2 months ago.  The history here doesn't 
lie about it. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history  The 'lanes' 
tag was there for version 19 of that way edited by Bickendan, but gone in 
version 20 edited by you Paul.  The way is now currently on version 23.

If I was part of the DWG, I would recommend making you apologize to jakeroot 
before you could continue editing anything because of that.  If you didn't 
realize Paul, you're kinda acting like NE2 right now when it comes to this.

-James (rickmastfan67)


From: burke...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:07:31 -0400
To: ba...@ursamundi.org; d...@osmfoundation.org; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

Paul,



He's not saying that jakeroot isn't the most recent editor. He's saying that 
the specific changes you're referring to are in changesets earlier than 
jakeroot's, and that *those* changesets appear to be yours. 



Not at a computer, so can't look myself. 



-jack



On September 4, 2015 4:44:53 PM EDT, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
This is in conflict with what I'm seeing in the area around Vancouver Mall, 
where jakeroot appears to be the most recent editor of everything along WA500.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's in the OSM way history. I didn't make it up. Look at it yourself if you 
don't believe me.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846830/history- "lanes" disappears between 
revisions 19 and 20. You submitted revision 20.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/45846831/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 13 and 14. You submitted revision 14.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/201133287/history
- "lanes" disappears between revisions 3 and 4. You submitted revision 4.
I could go on...

Chris
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 12:58 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:54 AM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
I'm going to have to additionally request this revert due to a fairly 
substantial loss of data that was involved after I spent a good 12-15 hours on 
detail lane tagging this expressway.  It appears many ways got merged and data 
was lost as a result.
Paul - You deleted that data yourself in changeset 32790788 when you made the
road a trunk in the first place.
Patently false.  I still have the last edit I made in the area on my desktop.  
jakeroot vandalized the map in his quest to tag the map NE2 style, and merged 
dozens of ways with zero regard for any tags except the one he was trying to 
game.
-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com>



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


-- 

Typos courtesy of fancy auto-spell technology. 
___
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] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:

> I believe that as long as there is at least a solid barrier between
> opposing traffic and access is limited to slip/link/ramp ways then that
> section is classified as a freeway by CalTrans.


Actually, just the latter.  There's a fair number of mostly mountainous and
rural examples in southern and Sierra parts of California where you'll see
freeway entrances leading to a four-lane undivided.  Or the division is
basically a token move; I recall there's a segment of the 118 around Rocky
Peak that allows you to drive on the lefthand shoulder, left of the
single-orange line (as opposed to the flush median usually painted to
provide the carpool lane some distance from substantially slower general
access traffic found closer to central LA) if you're a carpool during peak
hours with the only thing separating you from oncoming traffic doing the
same thing is a flimsy chain-link fence I wouldn't trust to stop a bicycle
from crossing over.  Checking street view if they finally fixed it suggests
that as of June 2012 it appears to be freshly renovated to use a flush
median to seperate now 24-hour carpool access and replaced the chain link
with a K-rail.


> On the other hand, there is a nearly 40 mile sections of CA152 between
> Casa De Fruita and I-5 which at either end have miles of limited access but
> which I think are offically non-freeway (tagged as trunk in OSM). So it
> could be that the length of the limited access section is taken into
> consideration by CalTrans when deciding to put up a “begin freeway” sign.
>

 Well, controlled access.  I consider controlled access a little higher
than limited access, the difference being whether or not surface
intersections and property access is banned unless otherwise unfeasible.  I
would consider limited access or a mix of limited and controlled access as
a trunk.  About the only thing I really consider a motorway would be
multilane, controlled access,
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

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

[Paul Johnson]

I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification creep
as well.  I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire length of KS 7
from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and creep it upwards.  I'm
not really seeing a significant difference in characteristic in the WA 500
example or the KS 7 example from the 70 MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75
between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK.  All four are surface freeways with
regular intersections.  This one doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you think
you need a mix of motorway and trunk, it's probably just a trunk.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Richie Kennedy <richiekenned...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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

[Chris Lawrence]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:37 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> 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.
>

I believe this reversion would be inappropriate and the tagging as-is
should stand. The portions of WA 500 tagged in OSM as "motorway" have full
control of access and meet the accepted tagging standards for motorway
status in North America, while the portion of the roadway lacking full
access control is properly tagged as "trunk."

Furthermore, the state department of transportation in question signs the
"highway=motorway" sections as a freeway using "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signage
and their official state highway map also uses the line styling associated
with a freeway for these segments. This would at least create a strong
presumption that motorway is the correct classification for the portions of
the roadway so signed.


Chris

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

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

[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

[Richard Welty]

On 9/2/15 12:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification
> creep as well.  I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire
> length of KS 7 from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and
> creep it upwards.  I'm not really seeing a significant difference in
> characteristic in the WA 500 example or the KS 7 example from the 70
> MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75 between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK. 
> All four are surface freeways with regular intersections.  This one
> doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you think you need a mix of motorway and
> trunk, it's probably just a trunk.
>
it's a grey area, and i think anyone getting into an edit war over it
probably
needs to chill out a bit.

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] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[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] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

I'm not so familiar with the K7 example, but I am intimately, first-person
familiar with the WA 500 situation.  The breakdown from what I gather in
the changeset comments is the disconnect with how it functions on the
ground and a pretty crassly mindless "but the WSDOT says it's a freeway"
idea.  WSDOT calls a divided super 2 with no shoulder a freeway as well.
Caltrans calls a 4 lane undivided highway a freeway if it's got ramps, but
I'm not sure anybody would consider the broad scope of what some American
DOT's call a freeway to be the strict and only thing that makes it a
freeway in OSM terms.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Richie Kennedy 
wrote:

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

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

[newnumber2]

Seems the same situation exists with US 52 in south east Minnesota.  I often
do edits in this region and so often see US 52 and have edited it in the
past myself.  Some months ago I noticed that someone had changed all of the
Trunk segments to Motorway.  I didn't respond to this at the time.  I
thought it looked nicer that way vs having so many alternating green and
blue segments, but how it looks isn't what really matters, is it?  This post
about WA 500 prompted me to go back and look at US 52 again.  I see that
some of the segments that had been previously changed to Motorway were
reverted back to Trunk.

I viewed the history for one of these segments, way 299594397, and found
that the OSM mapper who changed it from Trunk to Motorway was ajhartig26 and
the mapper who reverted it back to Trunk was jumbanho.  However, further
north, north of Cannon Falls, many segments mistakenly upgraded to Motorway
by ajhartig26 have not been corrected back to Trunk.

All of that being said, I will add that I have noticed on the odd occasion
that I have edited in, or at least viewed the OSM map of, some places in
foreign countries, peculiar uses of the classifications, not limited to
Trunk vs Motorway, and this raised questions in my mind about the matter,
which is the main reason I didn't bother to re-edit those segments of US 52
that ajhartig26 had edited. 




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Request-revert-on-Changeset-33669446-tp5853774p5853859.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] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Nathan Mills]

I can't speak to this specific instance, but based on Paul's usual criteria, 
I'd take what he has to say on the topic with a grain of salt. I gave up trying 
to convince him OK11 between I-244 and US-75 in Tulsa should be tagged as a 
motorway a long time ago, even though it has zero at grade intersections.

I also think the LL Tisdale between downtown and Pine should be classified 
motorway, but that one is at least arguable to my mind since it is very short 
and has only three interchanges, one of which is directional.

On September 2, 2015 12:25:11 PM EDT, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote:
>I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification
>creep
>as well.  I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire length of KS
>7
>from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and creep it upwards. 
>I'm
>not really seeing a significant difference in characteristic in the WA
>500
>example or the KS 7 example from the 70 MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75
>between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK.  All four are surface freeways with
>regular intersections.  This one doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you
>think
>you need a mix of motorway and trunk, it's probably just a trunk.
>
>On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Richie Kennedy
><richiekenned...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 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


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

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

[Tod Fitch]

It is my understanding that when you see a CalTrans “Begin Freeway” sign it is 
indicating the section ahead is free of cross traffic (no intersections without 
grade separation and on/off ramps). That is, freeway implies limited access. 
And when you see a “End Freeway” sign there will be possible cross traffic 
ahead. Driving south on US 101 from Salinas there are numerous end/begin 
freeway signs bracketing each area with possible cross traffic (often service 
roads to farms that you’d never really notice without the help of those end 
freeway signs). Last I checked, that section of US101 is largely tagged as 
trunk which makes sense to me even though when driving it you are inclined to 
think of it as a freeway.

I believe that as long as there is at least a solid barrier between opposing 
traffic and access is limited to slip/link/ramp ways then that section is 
classified as a freeway by CalTrans.

On the other hand, there is a nearly 40 mile sections of CA152 between Casa De 
Fruita and I-5 which at either end have miles of limited access but which I 
think are offically non-freeway (tagged as trunk in OSM). So it could be that 
the length of the limited access section is taken into consideration by 
CalTrans when deciding to put up a “begin freeway” sign.

Cheers,
Tod

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> . . .   Caltrans calls a 4 lane undivided highway a freeway if it's got 
> ramps, but I'm not sure anybody would consider the broad scope of what some 
> American DOT's call a freeway to be the strict and only thing that makes it a 
> freeway in OSM terms.
> 


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