Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
(replying to Zeke and Chris both) I agree that if there is only 1 mile of motorway class road among trunk-class road that tagging it motorway isn't useful. The parts of Route 2 that I was thinking of tagging as motorway are physically indistinguishable from an interstate, and at least 10 miles long. I am not 100% clear that pedestrians/bicycles are banned, but I think someone would call the police if either were on the road - I never see them when driving on 2.` As for the trunk designation, I find that a bit ocnfusing, but my impression is that it is a road that is somewhat more than a regular US highway physically, but not all the way to interstate. An example would be a road with 2 lanes in each direction and jersey barriers, but same-grade junctions with lights every few miles. Rt 2 is like this between 128 and Tracey's corner (1st intersection west) and really all the way to South Acton where it is motorway again until about 7 miles E of Orange and then it's back to trunk (1 lane each way only, but with exits). Further west it is just a primary road, but gradually being made more like trunk. I don't think being the only main road should qualify a way as trunk; it seems being important is only enough to get a road to primary. But some degree of limited access and being divided would be enough for trunk. So I'd leave rt 2 as motorway/trunk mixed. I've driven rt 7 from Bennington to Burlington, and it didn't in general feel like "almost an interstate but not quite" - it felt on balance more like primary. pgpmg4qxQqISi.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
Chris, After looking at the satellite imagery of Mass Route 2, I definitely agree that it should be a trunk road for most of the way with sections of Motorway. I think it's physical characteristics by themselves fit these classifications. Thats a good point about Motorways being completely unsuitable, if not illegal, for bike/pedestrian/equestrian traffic. Do you think Trunk roads should be considered suitable, if not ideal, for this type of traffic? I like your line of thinking about Trunk being used for roads that are most appropriate for long haul traffic. In areas where Motorways are few and far between, sometimes a two lane road is the main long distance route. Maybe roads like these should be classified as Trunk even though they aren't quite up to Trunk standards? Take western Vermont as an example again: http://openstreetmap.org/?lat=43.923&lon=-73.105&zoom=9&layers=B000TFFF US Highway 7 is the main north/south route connecting the major towns of Burlington, Rutland, and Bennington because no motorway exists on that side of the state. For most of it's length US 7 is a two lane road, but it has sections with 3 or 4 lanes, and sections with limited access. Currently it's tagged as Primary for most of the way with sections of Trunk, but maybe it should be tagged as Trunk since it's the only main route in the area. What do you think? Zeke On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote: > > Two examples of where I have used Trunk are US 4 and US 7 near Rutland, > VT: > > http://openstreetmap.com/?lat=43.538&lon=-73.084&zoom=11&layers=B000FFF > > > > Route 7 south of Rutland is sometimes divided, sometimes not. It has > > interchanges, but they are all same grade. It also has regular > > intersections. It has characteristics of Primary and Motorway, so I > > classified it as Trunk. > > > > Route 4 west of Rutland is completely divided, two lanes each way, it has > > limited access, and all of it's interchanges are grade separated. It > fits > > the description of a Motorway, but on either end it degrades to a Primary > > road, and it doesn't connect to any other Motorways. Because it doesn't > > connect to the greater Motorway network, I classified it as Trunk. > > I think an important thing to consider when choosing the > classification is that motorway implies that the road is completely > unsuitable for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle traffic (often that > traffic would be illegal). If there is a significant stretch (more > than 2 consecutive interchanges) of continuous full control of access, > or an official source (e.g. the state DOT map) shows it as a freeway, > I'd tag those parts with motorway even if this leads to something > disconnected from the broader "network." > > The trunk/primary distinction on the other hand is more a subjective > call based on the importance of the route and how appropriate it is > for through traffic over the "long haul" - e.g. a route that is the > next best thing to a continuous freeway/motorway. Route 2 is clearly > a major through route in Mass. so the parts that aren't up to freeway > standards probably should be tagged as trunk. And the significant > parts that are should be motorway. > > IMHO of course ;-) > > > Chris > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Zeke Farwell wrote: > Two examples of where I have used Trunk are US 4 and US 7 near Rutland, VT: > http://openstreetmap.com/?lat=43.538&lon=-73.084&zoom=11&layers=B000FFF > > Route 7 south of Rutland is sometimes divided, sometimes not. It has > interchanges, but they are all same grade. It also has regular > intersections. It has characteristics of Primary and Motorway, so I > classified it as Trunk. > > Route 4 west of Rutland is completely divided, two lanes each way, it has > limited access, and all of it's interchanges are grade separated. It fits > the description of a Motorway, but on either end it degrades to a Primary > road, and it doesn't connect to any other Motorways. Because it doesn't > connect to the greater Motorway network, I classified it as Trunk. I think an important thing to consider when choosing the classification is that motorway implies that the road is completely unsuitable for pedestrian, equestrian, and bicycle traffic (often that traffic would be illegal). If there is a significant stretch (more than 2 consecutive interchanges) of continuous full control of access, or an official source (e.g. the state DOT map) shows it as a freeway, I'd tag those parts with motorway even if this leads to something disconnected from the broader "network." The trunk/primary distinction on the other hand is more a subjective call based on the importance of the route and how appropriate it is for through traffic over the "long haul" - e.g. a route that is the next best thing to a continuous freeway/motorway. Route 2 is clearly a major through route in Mass. so the parts that aren't up to freeway standards probably should be tagged as trunk. And the significant parts that are should be motorway. IMHO of course ;-) Chris ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
Greg, It makes sense to me to reserve the Motorway classification for roads that are consistently divided with limited access, and grade separated interchanges. It also makes sense to me to reserve the Primary classification for roads that are not limited access, have same grade intersections (stop lights, jug handles, slip ramps, but no interchanges), and at the maximum are only divided my a raised median. I also think it makes sense to keep the classification of a road the same for as long a distance as possible. It makes for confusing maps when the status keeps changing back and forth. I use the Trunk classification for roads that do not fit cleanly into either the Motorway or Primary classification. These would be divided highways that have both grade separated interchanges and same grade intersections. Also roads that go back and forth between divided and non-divided. The last thing I use Trunk for is roads that have all the qualifications for a Motorway, but only for a short distance, and that don't connect to any other Motorways. The only reason I don't use Motorway here is that it seems stupid to have a small section of Motorway all by itself. Others may disagree. Two examples of where I have used Trunk are US 4 and US 7 near Rutland, VT: http://openstreetmap.com/?lat=43.538&lon=-73.084&zoom=11&layers=B000FFF Route 7 south of Rutland is sometimes divided, sometimes not. It has interchanges, but they are all same grade. It also has regular intersections. It has characteristics of Primary and Motorway, so I classified it as Trunk. Route 4 west of Rutland is completely divided, two lanes each way, it has limited access, and all of it's interchanges are grade separated. It fits the description of a Motorway, but on either end it degrades to a Primary road, and it doesn't connect to any other Motorways. Because it doesn't connect to the greater Motorway network, I classified it as Trunk. What do you think? Does it make sense to classify all of Route 2 as Trunk, or does it make more sense to classify it as Primary in some places and Motorway in others? Zeke Farwell Burlington, VT On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > In Massachusetts osm has state GIS data, and a number of the 1-way ways > are the wrong direction. This is particularly obvious for divided > highways, e.g. Rt 2 inside 128, 495 near Rt 2. > > Clearly I could go edit these manually. But I wonder if there is > automated way to fix this, perhaps by going back to the massgis data > (surely massgis would encode direction), spiffing up the import script > and applying diffs. Did this issue arise with TIGER data, or in other > states with state-level data? > > Also, some of the classifications seem not quite right. Rt. 2 is > sometimes labeled primary, which is correct some of the time, but the > length between Alewife and 128 seems to be to me a motorway. Is it the > general consensus that state and US highways that are divided and have > only on/off ramps and speed limits of 55/65 be tagged as motorways? > That's how I interpret the tagging guidance but wanted to ask before > changing it. > >Greg > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:55:56AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Christopher Schmidt writes: > > > MassGIS does not encode the direction. Oneways which are potentially > > wrong are marked with a FIXME note to fix the incorrect directionality. > > (I believe it is 'FIXME: Unconfirmed oneway'.) MassGIS pays NavTeq for > > routing data, and does not have a 'free' source of Oneway > > directionality. > > OK, so it's either manual, or having something that looks at the db and > finds pairs of ways tagged as motorway/primary/secondary that go the > same way and are labeled FIXME and flips on of them, assuming they are > laid out normally, changes FIXME tag to auto-fixed, and then maybe > propagates this to ramps. That sounds like a fair bit of work, maybe > more than hand editing them all. It's also not just motorways -- that's just the most obvious. ALl of Cambridge/Somerville has been done by hand, and the same will be true of most other towns that have one way roads inside of them. The split-directions roads are a case which is solvable technically, but since so many others aren't, I've always ust figured it'll get changed when peole go through the rest of the roads in an area. > > The classifications are based on the roads data, which is maintained by > > the executive office of transportation. I would assume that the > > classification is based on the legal classification of the road, rather > > than on usage. > > OK, so it's then proper in osm terms to adjust it to the usage/physical > method? Would you call 2 from alewife to 128 a motorway? (I'm just > checking my understanding of the norms before making changes.) I don't know. I just import data, I've never mapped anything out. :) Others might be able to comment on it more. Generally speaking, I'd probably refer to that stretch of road the same way I would to an interstate; I don't know what that translates to, but changing it to match that makes sense to me. -- Chris > (For those not in MA, here's an example interchange on this highway > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.42188&lon=-71.23007&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF > ) -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
Christopher Schmidt writes: > MassGIS does not encode the direction. Oneways which are potentially > wrong are marked with a FIXME note to fix the incorrect directionality. > (I believe it is 'FIXME: Unconfirmed oneway'.) MassGIS pays NavTeq for > routing data, and does not have a 'free' source of Oneway > directionality. OK, so it's either manual, or having something that looks at the db and finds pairs of ways tagged as motorway/primary/secondary that go the same way and are labeled FIXME and flips on of them, assuming they are laid out normally, changes FIXME tag to auto-fixed, and then maybe propagates this to ramps. That sounds like a fair bit of work, maybe more than hand editing them all. > The classifications are based on the roads data, which is maintained by > the executive office of transportation. I would assume that the > classification is based on the legal classification of the road, rather > than on usage. OK, so it's then proper in osm terms to adjust it to the usage/physical method? Would you call 2 from alewife to 128 a motorway? (I'm just checking my understanding of the norms before making changes.) (For those not in MA, here's an example interchange on this highway http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.42188&lon=-71.23007&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF ) pgpwHcC2yuGnj.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: > > In Massachusetts osm has state GIS data, and a number of the 1-way ways > are the wrong direction. This is particularly obvious for divided > highways, e.g. Rt 2 inside 128, 495 near Rt 2. > > Clearly I could go edit these manually. But I wonder if there is > automated way to fix this, perhaps by going back to the massgis data > (surely massgis would encode direction), MassGIS does not encode the direction. Oneways which are potentially wrong are marked with a FIXME note to fix the incorrect directionality. (I believe it is 'FIXME: Unconfirmed oneway'.) MassGIS pays NavTeq for routing data, and does not have a 'free' source of Oneway directionality. So, no amount of fixed import script can help this: the data simply doesn't exist from a free source. > spiffing up the import script > and applying diffs. Did this issue arise with TIGER data, or in other > states with state-level data? TIGER data does not encode one ways at all. > Also, some of the classifications seem not quite right. Rt. 2 is > sometimes labeled primary, which is correct some of the time, but the > length between Alewife and 128 seems to be to me a motorway. Is it the > general consensus that state and US highways that are divided and have > only on/off ramps and speed limits of 55/65 be tagged as motorways? > That's how I interpret the tagging guidance but wanted to ask before > changing it. The classifications are based on the roads data, which is maintained by the executive office of transportation. I would assume that the classification is based on the legal classification of the road, rather than on usage. Regards, -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] directions of ways in MassGIS data
In Massachusetts osm has state GIS data, and a number of the 1-way ways are the wrong direction. This is particularly obvious for divided highways, e.g. Rt 2 inside 128, 495 near Rt 2. Clearly I could go edit these manually. But I wonder if there is automated way to fix this, perhaps by going back to the massgis data (surely massgis would encode direction), spiffing up the import script and applying diffs. Did this issue arise with TIGER data, or in other states with state-level data? Also, some of the classifications seem not quite right. Rt. 2 is sometimes labeled primary, which is correct some of the time, but the length between Alewife and 128 seems to be to me a motorway. Is it the general consensus that state and US highways that are divided and have only on/off ramps and speed limits of 55/65 be tagged as motorways? That's how I interpret the tagging guidance but wanted to ask before changing it. Greg pgpbBGA7HX02y.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
