Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[McGuire, Matthew]

OK OK. Shot down, shot down (not just by you). I guess since I work for an MPO 
that classifies roads according to their function, I have a pointy headed 
definition of function as something that cannot be done by people on the 
ground, and the results of which are not great for general purpose mapping.

My final thought on the subject is that if the OSM paradigm is "map what's on 
the ground", I think the combined wisdom of the crowd will bear a dataset that 
meets your needs by using direct observational classification. Functional 
classification is indirect and not, "what's on the ground".



-Original Message-
From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Alan Mintz
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:12 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

At 2010-03-04 09:38, McGuire, Matthew wrote:
>...
>A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a
>person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to
>classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see
>on the ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not
>the same.
>
>I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the
>highway tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways
>have photos and describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine
>system or function from a photograph.  I also think it is what the Census
>Feature Class Code definitions describe.

I disagree. Even if this is what was intended, it's certainly less useful
than the others. When I zoom out a certain amount, what I want to see is
the local (aka residential in OSM) roads disappear. Further out still, I
want to see the tertiary roads disappear, etc. This is what's useful when
trying to map a route through an unknown area - you want to stick to the
main roads that get you there with better road conditions, fewer
intersections, etc.

As an example, in this area:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.426&lon=-117.664&zoom=11&layers=B000FTF
, 2-land paved roads are few and far between, making them important
tertiary or secondary connections. A road with the same characteristics in
the city would be unclassified, as there are much better roads. It's all
relative to the area, which is why I don't think it's reasonable to
classify by any objective characteristics - you have to know or survey the
area in order to know how to classify them. Perhaps some people with a lot
of experience may be able to do this from satellite imagery.

I believe this closely matches what I see in transportation sections of a
city's general plan. I think it's useful to use these as guidelines when
classifying roads. Many cities/counties of any reasonable size make these
available on their website. They usually have:

- freeway, expressway, etc. = OSM motorway or trunk
- primary arterial = OSM primary
- secondary arterial = OSM secondary
- minor arterial and/or collector = OSM tertiary
- local = OSM residential or unclassified

--
Alan Mintz 


___
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] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Emilie Laffray]

On 12 March 2010 08:44, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote:
>
> > One of the national road that I used regularly
> > in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would
> > consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a
> > secondary road in some locations. The route is giving us some
> > consistency for the location of the entire route, but that is it.
> >  Emilie Laffray
>
> Well, a primary route would be a national route...
>
>
Well not necessarily. The state recently demoted route for administrative
purposes. They are the same roads except that now it is the regions that are
taking care of them. They are now departemental roads. That doesn't the fact
that they are still primary roads. Administrative classification doesn't
tell you how important or even the kind of roads it is.

Emilie Laffray
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > How so?  I said "motorway and/or trunk roads".  Any roads which don't
>> > qualify as motorways would be trunks.
>>
>> But expressways are trunks.
>
>
> All of them?  If you say so.
>

Hmm.  The Veterans Expressway (589) is a motorway.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.1845&lon=-82.5419&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF

So no, not all expressways are trunks.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > How so?  I said "motorway and/or trunk roads".  Any roads which don't
> > qualify as motorways would be trunks.
>
> But expressways are trunks.


All of them?  If you say so.


> Can you provide an example of an expressway that isn't paved and isn't
> divided?
>

Maybe.  What's your definition of "expressway"?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:39:15 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > If bicycles aren't prohibited, it's not a
> > motorway.
>
> Then most of the US doesn't have motorways, by your definition; an idea
> I'm pretty sure most would find to be absurdist.
>

I'm not sure if you're correct, but I don't find it to be absurd.  Much of
the US doesn't have a need for motorways.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:39:15 -0500, Anthony wrote:

> If bicycles aren't prohibited, it's not a
> motorway.

Then most of the US doesn't have motorways, by your definition; an idea 
I'm pretty sure most would find to be absurdist.


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:

> How so?  I said "motorway and/or trunk roads".  Any roads which don't
> qualify as motorways would be trunks.

But expressways are trunks.  Can you provide an example of an expressway 
that isn't paved and isn't divided?


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote:

> One of the national road that I used regularly
> in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would
> consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a
> secondary road in some locations. The route is giving us some
> consistency for the location of the entire route, but that is it.
>  Emilie Laffray

Well, a primary route would be a national route...


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:21:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > Yeah.  Motorway is simple.  A road designated exclusively for motor
> > vehicles.
>
> That's not true for most of America (as only 23 states prohibit bicycles
> and pedestrians on freeways).
>

It's not true?  Freeway is not the same as "motorway".  You gave the
definition of "motorway" yourself.  "designed for
high
speed 
traffic,
having restrictions  on the
vehicle 
types
permitted ".  Motorway, by
definition, is exclusive to motor vehicles.  If bicycles aren't prohibited,
it's not a motorway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony
> >  wrote:
> >
> >> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: *Motorways
> >> are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic. *trunks are the most important
> >> roads in a geographic area which aren't motorways.
> >>
> >>
> > As a corollary to this, Alaska should have several motorway and/or trunk
> > roads, regardless of whether or not they are interstates, fake
> > interstates, paved, unpaved, divided, undivided, etc.
>
> That would violate the basic definition of the word "motorway" as it is
> commonly understood in the English language.
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motorway
>

How so?  I said "motorway and/or trunk roads".  Any roads which don't
qualify as motorways would be trunks.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:21:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:

> Yeah.  Motorway is simple.  A road designated exclusively for motor
> vehicles.

That's not true for most of America (as only 23 states prohibit bicycles 
and pedestrians on freeways).



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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Emilie Laffray]

On 8 March 2010 22:23, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> That's true, which makes me wonder if it's time to move primary/secondary/
> tertiary from ways highway= tags to route relations (since those three
> highway tags speak more to the kind of route on the way rather than the
> way itself).
>
>
I am not sure how route relations would solve the consistency problem. The
route relation is providing a different layer of information that is needed.
In addition, you can see that a route in France (we use them) can be quite
different in different locations. One of the national road that I used
regularly in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would
consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a secondary
road in some locations. The route is giving us some consistency for the
location of the entire route, but that is it.


Emilie Laffray
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:19:31 +, Emilie Laffray wrote:

> On 7 March 2010 10:46, Paul Johnson
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.  I
>> don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work
>> differently in the UK than it does in Canada, or in Canada differently
>> from the US.  So why should the same map work differently in Oregon
>> than it does New York or Washington?
>>
>>
> I don't know but when I read a map from a different country, I read it
> with the new context in mind. Maps are highly contextual piece of works.
> I have lived in France, US, UK, and Curacao, and I can assure that if
> you expect to give you the same information you are mistaken. Roads that
> can be considered primary in Curacao will definitely not looked like the
> one you would see in France, etc...

That's true, which makes me wonder if it's time to move primary/secondary/
tertiary from ways highway= tags to route relations (since those three 
highway tags speak more to the kind of route on the way rather than the 
way itself).

> Everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don't believe in
> absolute systems, but in relative systems.
> Consistency is a good thing but you have to look on what aspect they
> need to be consistent. 

I'm looking at relative to the rest of the world.


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony
>  wrote:
> 
>> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: *Motorways
>> are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic. *trunks are the most important
>> roads in a geographic area which aren't motorways.
>>
>>
> As a corollary to this, Alaska should have several motorway and/or trunk
> roads, regardless of whether or not they are interstates, fake
> interstates, paved, unpaved, divided, undivided, etc.

That would violate the basic definition of the word "motorway" as it is 
commonly understood in the English language.  
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/motorway

> I would assume they are paved, and I would assume they connect between 
> the major cities in Alaska and/or with major cities in Canada.  But I
> have no idea what other criteria they might meet.  I'm sure someone 
> more familiar with Alaska can do so.

There's at least one motorway in Alaska, though it's not particularly 
long.  There's not exactly the population density or climate to really 
make building such a large highway possible outside all but the largest 
cities.


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this:
> *Motorways are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic.
> *trunks are the most important roads in a geographic area which aren't
> motorways.
>

As a corollary to this, Alaska should have several motorway and/or trunk
roads, regardless of whether or not they are interstates, fake interstates,
paved, unpaved, divided, undivided, etc.  I would assume they are paved, and
I would assume they connect between the major cities in Alaska and/or with
major cities in Canada.  But I have no idea what other criteria they might
meet.  I'm sure someone more familiar with Alaska can do so.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
>
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently".  The laws of different
> > states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by
> the
> > map is different.  The maps, therefore, are going to be different.  I
> > wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,
> > because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.
>
> So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?
>

Hmm, not that I know of.  But maybe you're right.  What would you consider a
300+ way fork (that you believe I was suggesting)?  I certainly don't
suggest having different databases.

The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this:
*Motorways are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic.
*trunks are the most important roads in a geographic area which aren't
motorways.
*primary, secondary, and tertiary roads are, in that order, less important
than trunk roads
*residential roads are generally used primarily for non-through-traffic
*a road which connects between a primary and a tertiary or residential road,
which is not itself a residential road, is probably a secondary road

However, this is pretty much all subjective.  So I think we need to adopt
objective standards, on a state by state basis.  Alternatively, we should
just call everything that isn't a motorway a road, tag it with the
appropriate features, and use some automated process to figure out the
expected relative volume of traffic on a road in order to color it
appropriately.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Emilie Laffray]

On 7 March 2010 10:46, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.  I
> don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work
> differently in the UK than it does in Canada, or in Canada
> differently from the US.  So why should the same map work
> differently in Oregon than it does New York or Washington?
>
>
I don't know but when I read a map from a different country, I read it with
the new context in mind. Maps are highly contextual piece of works. I have
lived in France, US, UK, and Curacao, and I can assure that if you expect to
give you the same information you are mistaken. Roads that can be considered
primary in Curacao will definitely not looked like the one you would see in
France, etc...
Everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt. I don't believe in absolute
systems, but in relative systems.
Consistency is a good thing but you have to look on what aspect they need to
be consistent. If you are talking about physical consistency then I suspect
we don't have enough tags, a primary road in Africa will be quite different
than a primary road in Western countries, etc.
I partly agree with you but we have to be careful with consistency,
especially considering absolute criterias. For example, Google is rendering
their maps in the same way around the world even if the roads can be very
dissimilar.

Emilie Laffray
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently".  The laws of different
>> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the
>> map is different.  The maps, therefore, are going to be different.  I
>> wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,
>> because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.
>
> So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?

It's entirely possible I'm wrong here (since I'm not paying as close
attention to this thread as others) but I believe the recommendations
here are to add tags which correspond to local standards. Once that's
done, other tags which may be more subjective can be added for
simplicity, and the renderer can use either the exact tagging scheme
that makes sense locally, or else it can use the more generalized (but
less precise) tags.

- Serge

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Andrew Sawyer]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Richard Welty wrote:
>
> > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be
> found
> > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
> > because they're state highways?
>
> I would say so.  There's the "surface" tag, too...  surface=gravel,
> surface=unpaved...
>
> Not to be super technical, but in New Hampshire all public roads are state
highways. The distinction you are likely referencing is the numbered State
routes which are maintained by NH DOT (except some city/town centers) and
known as the New Hampshire Highway System.

A question that I have is whether or not NH Routes should ever be listed as
Primary or Tertiary? I know in Mass its been done using a functional usage
criteria, whereas I have used the US Routes get to be Primary, NH Routes
Secondary and routes that connect town centers that aren't the other two are
tertiary. I know this is the debate that we are having, but it would seem
that either we leave it to regions or states to decide or try a one size
fits all approach based off the British system which doesn't seem to match
up very well (at least terminology wise) with the US and its intricacies.

There seem to be two major groups of roads: limited access and everything
else. Within those groups there are variations that at some level get
tedious in distinguishing between various classifications that depend on
routing/lanes/max speed. In some respects a standard is important, but it
has to describe and differentiate between the roads. I think that a regional
approach, especially in NE, would be best while maintaining some uniformity
across the US and World. I would propose more, but I find it difficult given
the current structure. It would seem that there be two major tagging
classifications could dominate the tagging:
1. administrative (coming from the authorities over it - route numbers,
administrative designations of classification, etc.)
2. functional (coming from actual usage criteria, like number of lanes,
width, etc)

The first is going to be easier to tag and edit, whereas the latter is going
to be more intensive with reviewing official GIS data and personal
observations. Just some thoughts. I don't propose to reinvent the wheel,
maybe this can be accomplished with Relations or current tagging and leave
people quibbling over colors to renders?

Some thoughts and my two cents.

Andrew Sawyer
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 7 Mar 2010, at 11:59 , Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
>>Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
>> yes, please osm is an international project
> 
> I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that comes 
> at a price, and one has to carefully think about whether it makes sense 
> economically to pay this price - or if it may be more efficient to reach the 
> same goals on another route!
> 
> Remember that the free-form tagging we have, where anyone can do what they 
> believe makes sense, is one of the pillars of OSM's success. Working towards 
> worldwide consistency does not necessarily mean creating stricter rules, but 
> in my experience many who talk about this topic have exactly that in mind - 
> the idea is, more or less, always the same: (1) convene some kind of expert 
> group to make decisions, (2) perhaps have the discussions ratified by the 
> current project membership somehow, and (3) find ways to enforce them - 
> voila, consistency by decree.

not that I disagree with you here but
the start of the thread contains "should", the follow up "please" 
where do you read anything about strict  rules, experts, enforcement ...

> 
> The danger behind such an approach is that it could kill the "drive" that 
> many mappers have. The "let's roll up our sleeves and get something done" 
> spirit could suffer if mappers feel controlled/overruled by someone somewhere 
> (witness the many disgruntled Wikipedians coming to OSM and expressing relief 
> about the absence of self-made relevance criteria - just because a decision 
> is carried by a majority doesn't mean it is good for the project).
> 
> Thus, it *may* be better to accept that people in different countries or even 
> different regions tag their stuff differently, and work on a smart way to 
> handle all this. More work for those using the data but at the same time less 
> of a corset for those creating it.
> 

there must be a balance, entering data must be easy but also consuming data 
must be easy too. most mappers are in one or the other form consumers of the 
data. If cost of consumption is too hight the osm data is useless because for 
the same cost it can be created in a better form.

> SteveC wrote about this half a year ago, and already saying that he was 
> "reviving an old idea":
> 
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-October/017287.html
> 
> As discussion progressed he was reminded of the Osmosis TagTransform plugin 
> which can already do a lot of work "streamlining" an OSM data set. Surely not 
> the answer to everything, but worth investigating.

I know this discussion. discussion didn't go far and for my impression  makes 
direct access to the osm data more difficult.  But it could definitely make 
sense as an API for osm data consuming applications.
In a certain way Josm, Potlatch are doing it already with the templates. Adding 
a translation table to "hide" the raw tag names and values could be easily done.

> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Welty wrote:

> probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be found
> in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
> because they're state highways?

I would say so.  There's the "surface" tag, too...  surface=gravel,
surface=unpaved...


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

Bill Ricker wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
>> though all of them are in Alaska.
>>
>
> wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?

No, not outside Anchorage, and even then, barely.

> How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no  ?

I would tag them as "secondary", with the AK## state ref numbers
since they're not even signed as interstates, but as Alaska state
highways.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska



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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

Anthony wrote:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently".  The laws of different
> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the
> map is different.  The maps, therefore, are going to be different.  I
> wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,
> because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.

So you're suggesting a 300+ way fork of OSM?


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
> 
> yes, please osm is an international project

I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that 
comes at a price, and one has to carefully think about whether it makes 
sense economically to pay this price - or if it may be more efficient to 
reach the same goals on another route!

Remember that the free-form tagging we have, where anyone can do what 
they believe makes sense, is one of the pillars of OSM's success. 
Working towards worldwide consistency does not necessarily mean creating 
stricter rules, but in my experience many who talk about this topic have 
exactly that in mind - the idea is, more or less, always the same: (1) 
convene some kind of expert group to make decisions, (2) perhaps have 
the discussions ratified by the current project membership somehow, and 
(3) find ways to enforce them - voila, consistency by decree.

The danger behind such an approach is that it could kill the "drive" 
that many mappers have. The "let's roll up our sleeves and get something 
done" spirit could suffer if mappers feel controlled/overruled by 
someone somewhere (witness the many disgruntled Wikipedians coming to 
OSM and expressing relief about the absence of self-made relevance 
criteria - just because a decision is carried by a majority doesn't mean 
it is good for the project).

Thus, it *may* be better to accept that people in different countries or 
even different regions tag their stuff differently, and work on a smart 
way to handle all this. More work for those using the data but at the 
same time less of a corset for those creating it.

SteveC wrote about this half a year ago, and already saying that he was 
"reviving an old idea":

http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/dev/2009-October/017287.html

As discussion progressed he was reminded of the Osmosis TagTransform 
plugin which can already do a lot of work "streamlining" an OSM data 
set. Surely not the answer to everything, but worth investigating.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony  wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
>
>
>
yes, please osm is an international project


> When objectively describing the features on the ground, sure.  But
> primary/secondary/tertiary don't do that.
>

yes, they are functional and it's strange that so many try to put in all the
physical and administrative into a single tag. this must fail or we need >
50 values for the highway tag


>
> If we want to achieve worldwide consistency, we should throw
> primary/secondary/tertiary out the window, and replace them with objective
> facts.  I don't see that happening though, so the next best solution is to
> come up with objective definitions on a state by state basis.  Possibly even
> more locally than that in some cases.  But certainly at least on a state by
> state basis, since traffic laws are defined on a state by state basis.
>

not really, just stop putting in more interpretation into the highway tag
AND start to add more tags with objective facts.
fully agree this can and should be state specific.
there are already many tags in use for surface, lane, network  but usage
should be extended for sure.


___
> 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] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Richard Welty]

On 3/7/10 11:19 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bill Ricker > wrote:




On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:

I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
though all of them are in Alaska.


wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska

"They follow various combinations of Alaska Routes, which generally 
fail to meet Interstate Highway standards, being for the most part 
two-lane rural highways without controlled access. The federal 
government established the classification of these roads as Interstate 
Highways, primarily for funding purposes."


ah, but they're not signed, the interstate designation is 
administrative/political (funding).


this is similar to the issue in NY (and probably other places) where 
there are roads
maintained by the state to high standards, with "reference route" 
designations, but no
signage other that the small green reference markers. putting these 
designations in
a ref tag with a US: network would be misleading to anyone 
trying to

navigate with a map.

probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be found
in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
because they're state highways?

richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bill Ricker  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
>> though all of them are in Alaska.
>>
>
> wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_in_Alaska

"They follow various combinations of Alaska Routes, which generally fail to
meet Interstate Highway standards, being for the most part two-lane rural
highways without controlled access. The federal government established the
classification of these roads as Interstate Highways, primarily for funding
purposes."
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
> though all of them are in Alaska.
>

wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no  ?

"The exception that proves the rule" means *tests*  as in proof-testing gun
or armor. ...

-- 
Bill
n1...@arrl.net bill.n1...@gmail.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> Anthony wrote:
> > Yeah.  Motorway is simple.  A road designated exclusively for motor
> > vehicles.  The rest should probably be handled on a state by state basis.
> > Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme for all of its states.  Why
> > should the US?
>
> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.


When objectively describing the features on the ground, sure.  But
primary/secondary/tertiary don't do that.

If we want to achieve worldwide consistency, we should throw
primary/secondary/tertiary out the window, and replace them with objective
facts.  I don't see that happening though, so the next best solution is to
come up with objective definitions on a state by state basis.  Possibly even
more locally than that in some cases.  But certainly at least on a state by
state basis, since traffic laws are defined on a state by state basis.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work
> differently in the UK than it does in Canada, or in Canada
> differently from the US.  So why should the same map work
> differently in Oregon than it does New York or Washington?


I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently".  The laws of different
states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the
map is different.  The maps, therefore, are going to be different.  I
wouldn't "expect the same map to work differently" in different places,
because I wouldn't "expect the same map" in different places.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

Anthony wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>> > I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
>> > network a particular road belongs to.
>> >
>> > Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwise...
>> > US highway = primary
>> > State highway = secondary
>> > City/county/Forest route = tertiary
>>
>> Whoa!  There are too many places, in my experience, where those
>> network memberships do not line up with expectation of physical
>> characteristics.
>>
>
> Yeah.  Motorway is simple.  A road designated exclusively for motor
> vehicles.  The rest should probably be handled on a state by state basis.
> Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme for all of its states.  Why
> should the US?

Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.  I
don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work
differently in the UK than it does in Canada, or in Canada
differently from the US.  So why should the same map work
differently in Oregon than it does New York or Washington?



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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

Richard Weait wrote:

> I don't know of a US route that is unpaved, but I suppose it could
> exist.  I'd be sure to add surface=unpaved, rather than suggest that
> all US routes are now unpaved. ;-)

I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
though all of them are in Alaska.


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Richard Welty]

On 3/6/10 5:21 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait > wrote:



Whoa!  There are too many places, in my experience, where those
network memberships do not line up with expectation of physical
characteristics.


Yeah.  Motorway is simple.  A road designated exclusively for motor 
vehicles.  The rest should probably be handled on a state by state 
basis.  Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme for all of its 
states.  Why should the US?

in some cases, not even state-by-state.

for example, NYC is a very different creature from upstate NY.

richard

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Anthony]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> > I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
> > network a particular road belongs to.
> >
> > Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwise...
> > US highway = primary
> > State highway = secondary
> > City/county/Forest route = tertiary
>
> Whoa!  There are too many places, in my experience, where those
> network memberships do not line up with expectation of physical
> characteristics.
>

Yeah.  Motorway is simple.  A road designated exclusively for motor
vehicles.  The rest should probably be handled on a state by state basis.
Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme for all of its states.  Why
should the US?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Richard Weait]

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
> network a particular road belongs to.
>
> Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwise...
> US highway = primary
> State highway = secondary
> City/county/Forest route = tertiary

Whoa!  There are too many places, in my experience, where those
network memberships do not line up with expectation of physical
characteristics.

Yes, network is important, absolutely, and while there are cases when
network approximates physical characteristics, "it ain't always so."

> In many cases, observed characteristics are better handled with
> other tags anyway.

Exactly.  When the characteristics can be tagged factually, they
should be tagged factually.  If it is a US route tag it as a US route.
 And if is one lane each way, with a traffic signal at each
intersection in town and you still think it deserves primary, then go
to it.  But let yourself change that if the local conditions warrant
it.

I don't know of a US route that is unpaved, but I suppose it could
exist.  I'd be sure to add surface=unpaved, rather than suggest that
all US routes are now unpaved. ;-)

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Paul Johnson]

Alan Mintz wrote:


> - freeway, expressway, etc. = OSM motorway or trunk
> - primary arterial = OSM primary
> - secondary arterial = OSM secondary
> - minor arterial and/or collector = OSM tertiary
> - local = OSM residential or unclassified

I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
network a particular road belongs to.

Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwise...
US highway = primary
State highway = secondary
City/county/Forest route = tertiary

In many cases, observed characteristics are better handled with
other tags anyway.



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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 5 Mar 2010, at 3:29 , Richard Weait wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell  
> wrote:
>> didn't know this page exists.
>> Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some 
>> deviations will make sense here and there.
> 
> I suppose adding tags for cfcc and hfcs makes sense as an addition to
> existing tagging.
> 
> Using those classifications to replace the judgment and experience of
> an OSM surveyor on the ground is a bad idea.  The cfcc and hfcs both
> fail in terms of "observability" by ground surveyors and so those
> paper classifications are less reliable.
> 
> Be respectful of the work of surveyors on the ground.
> 

absolutely, the statement was not meant to be evaluated and used by armchair 
mappers. We have some big problems with this kind of  edits where people trace 
from yahoo or sources like this and mess up the map.


> ___
> 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] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[David ``Smith'']

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM, McGuire, Matthew
 wrote:
> I see three dimensions of road classification at play here.
>
> 1) System
> 2) Function
> 3) Observed Character
>
> System is the easy one. That is the road system(s) that that the road belongs 
> to especially for signage, but also for road funding channels, and 
> maintenance responsibility.  And I agree that in practice, Census Feature 
> Class Codes have been used (incorrectly) to identify the system to which a 
> road belongs.

Actually, the CFCCs are based almost entirely on the system to which a
road belongs.  The Census Bureau just botches it a lot because they're
not a highway department.

> Function describes the role a road plays in a road system and the types of 
> trips (volume and length) it supports based on travel demand and trip 
> generation. This is what the Highway Functional Classification System is 
> designed for. It is used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations to distribute 
> transportation funding.

This is what the highway tag should mostly be based on, because that
makes the most useful map.

> A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a person 
> on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to classify 
> the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see on the 
> ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not the same.

> I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the highway 
> tag.

No, it's not!  Because character is highly correlated with function,
it's possible to have a close guess of function based on observed
character most of the time.  But if we give each highway a
classification based entirely on observed character, we'll have sloppy
maps that are difficult to understand.

> I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways have photos and 
> describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine system or function from 
> a photograph.

You've got it a bit backwards.  Because you cannot determine system or
function from a photograph, and the people who wrote the tag
descriptions were in a mindset of mapping from photos and physical
appearances only, the OSM tag descriptions are based on that.

> I also think it is what the Census Feature Class Code definitions describe.

The CFCCs, at least the ones that deal with roads, literally describe
a combination of system and observed character, though it can be
frequently wrong on either.  They translate to things like
"Interstate", "undivided US route", "state route in tunnel", and
"local street".

> I would like to see all three dimensions.

Where the OSM community is trying to go is to use the highway tag for
function, the ref tag and route relations for system, and various
other tags to describe physical characteristics.  Right now,
"highway=motorway" and in some places "highway=trunk" are tied to (or
strongly imply) certain physical characteristics, but I'm working on a
proposal to change that slightly.

-- 
David "Smith"
a.k.a. Vid the Kid
a.k.a. Bír'd'in

Does this font make me look fat?

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Richard Weait]

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell  wrote:
> didn't know this page exists.
> Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some deviations 
> will make sense here and there.

I suppose adding tags for cfcc and hfcs makes sense as an addition to
existing tagging.

Using those classifications to replace the judgment and experience of
an OSM surveyor on the ground is a bad idea.  The cfcc and hfcs both
fail in terms of "observability" by ground surveyors and so those
paper classifications are less reliable.

Be respectful of the work of surveyors on the ground.

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

didn't know this page exists.  
Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some deviations 
will make sense here and there.


On 4 Mar 2010, at 15:37 , Kevin Samples wrote:

> Hi,
> I am a proponent of using the Highway Functional Classification System, 
> which Alan has described below and is on the wiki
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
> 
> I've classified roads in Clarke County, Georgia and the surrounding 
> counties using the HFC System with what I think are good results.
> http://osm.org/go/ZSCaTrq
> 
> Kevin
> 
> On 3/4/2010 6:12 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
>> At 2010-03-04 09:38, McGuire, Matthew wrote:
>> 
>>> ...
>>> A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a
>>> person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to
>>> classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see
>>> on the ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not
>>> the same.
>>> 
>>> I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the
>>> highway tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways
>>> have photos and describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine
>>> system or function from a photograph.  I also think it is what the Census
>>> Feature Class Code definitions describe.
>>> 
>> I disagree. Even if this is what was intended, it's certainly less useful
>> than the others. When I zoom out a certain amount, what I want to see is
>> the local (aka residential in OSM) roads disappear. Further out still, I
>> want to see the tertiary roads disappear, etc. This is what's useful when
>> trying to map a route through an unknown area - you want to stick to the
>> main roads that get you there with better road conditions, fewer
>> intersections, etc.
>> 
>> As an example, in this area:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.426&lon=-117.664&zoom=11&layers=B000FTF
>> , 2-land paved roads are few and far between, making them important
>> tertiary or secondary connections. A road with the same characteristics in
>> the city would be unclassified, as there are much better roads. It's all
>> relative to the area, which is why I don't think it's reasonable to
>> classify by any objective characteristics - you have to know or survey the
>> area in order to know how to classify them. Perhaps some people with a lot
>> of experience may be able to do this from satellite imagery.
>> 
>> I believe this closely matches what I see in transportation sections of a
>> city's general plan. I think it's useful to use these as guidelines when
>> classifying roads. Many cities/counties of any reasonable size make these
>> available on their website. They usually have:
>> 
>> - freeway, expressway, etc. = OSM motorway or trunk
>> - primary arterial = OSM primary
>> - secondary arterial = OSM secondary
>> - minor arterial and/or collector = OSM tertiary
>> - local = OSM residential or unclassified
>> 
>> --
>> Alan Mintz
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Kevin Samples]

Hi,
I am a proponent of using the Highway Functional Classification System, 
which Alan has described below and is on the wiki
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System

I've classified roads in Clarke County, Georgia and the surrounding 
counties using the HFC System with what I think are good results.
http://osm.org/go/ZSCaTrq

Kevin

On 3/4/2010 6:12 PM, Alan Mintz wrote:
> At 2010-03-04 09:38, McGuire, Matthew wrote:
>
>> ...
>> A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a
>> person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to
>> classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see
>> on the ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not
>> the same.
>>
>> I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the
>> highway tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways
>> have photos and describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine
>> system or function from a photograph.  I also think it is what the Census
>> Feature Class Code definitions describe.
>>  
> I disagree. Even if this is what was intended, it's certainly less useful
> than the others. When I zoom out a certain amount, what I want to see is
> the local (aka residential in OSM) roads disappear. Further out still, I
> want to see the tertiary roads disappear, etc. This is what's useful when
> trying to map a route through an unknown area - you want to stick to the
> main roads that get you there with better road conditions, fewer
> intersections, etc.
>
> As an example, in this area:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.426&lon=-117.664&zoom=11&layers=B000FTF
> , 2-land paved roads are few and far between, making them important
> tertiary or secondary connections. A road with the same characteristics in
> the city would be unclassified, as there are much better roads. It's all
> relative to the area, which is why I don't think it's reasonable to
> classify by any objective characteristics - you have to know or survey the
> area in order to know how to classify them. Perhaps some people with a lot
> of experience may be able to do this from satellite imagery.
>
> I believe this closely matches what I see in transportation sections of a
> city's general plan. I think it's useful to use these as guidelines when
> classifying roads. Many cities/counties of any reasonable size make these
> available on their website. They usually have:
>
> - freeway, expressway, etc. = OSM motorway or trunk
> - primary arterial = OSM primary
> - secondary arterial = OSM secondary
> - minor arterial and/or collector = OSM tertiary
> - local = OSM residential or unclassified
>
> --
> Alan Mintz
>
>
> ___
> 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] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Alan Mintz]

At 2010-03-04 09:38, McGuire, Matthew wrote:
>...
>A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a 
>person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to 
>classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see 
>on the ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not 
>the same.
>
>I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the 
>highway tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways 
>have photos and describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine 
>system or function from a photograph.  I also think it is what the Census 
>Feature Class Code definitions describe.

I disagree. Even if this is what was intended, it's certainly less useful 
than the others. When I zoom out a certain amount, what I want to see is 
the local (aka residential in OSM) roads disappear. Further out still, I 
want to see the tertiary roads disappear, etc. This is what's useful when 
trying to map a route through an unknown area - you want to stick to the 
main roads that get you there with better road conditions, fewer 
intersections, etc.

As an example, in this area: 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=34.426&lon=-117.664&zoom=11&layers=B000FTF 
, 2-land paved roads are few and far between, making them important 
tertiary or secondary connections. A road with the same characteristics in 
the city would be unclassified, as there are much better roads. It's all 
relative to the area, which is why I don't think it's reasonable to 
classify by any objective characteristics - you have to know or survey the 
area in order to know how to classify them. Perhaps some people with a lot 
of experience may be able to do this from satellite imagery.

I believe this closely matches what I see in transportation sections of a 
city's general plan. I think it's useful to use these as guidelines when 
classifying roads. Many cities/counties of any reasonable size make these 
available on their website. They usually have:

- freeway, expressway, etc. = OSM motorway or trunk
- primary arterial = OSM primary
- secondary arterial = OSM secondary
- minor arterial and/or collector = OSM tertiary
- local = OSM residential or unclassified

--
Alan Mintz 


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Greg Troxel]

"McGuire, Matthew"  writes:

> I see three dimensions of road classification at play here.
>
> 1) System
> 2) Function
> 3) Observed Character

I think you have this exactly right.

I view current practice as more or less a blend of system
(interstate/us/state) and observed character (trunk), with a nod to
function, where e.g. Massachusetts 2 is tagged as primary because it is
as important (if not more so) than a US highway in terms of how people
view it and in terms of how people use it (it's the major E/W route in
the north half of the state, so it's arguably more important than US 20
wich is superceded by I90 for long distance travel).


pgp7mxTa9WAlZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Brad Neuhauser]

So, aside from interstates (which it seems like everyone agrees should
be tagged as motorways?), should/could "System" be abstracted out of
road tagging definitions?

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Apollinaris Schoell  wrote:
>
> On 4 Mar 2010, at 9:38 , McGuire, Matthew wrote:
>
>> I see three dimensions of road classification at play here.
>>
>> 1) System
>> 2) Function
>> 3) Observed Character
>>
>> System is the easy one. That is the road system(s) that that the road 
>> belongs to especially for signage, but also for road funding channels, and 
>> maintenance responsibility.  And I agree that in practice, Census Feature 
>> Class Codes have been used (incorrectly) to identify the system to which a 
>> road belongs.
>>
>
> exactly, we should start tagging this with an operator tag or something 
> similar. many  osm mappers don't care but road enthusiasts do.
>
>> Function describes the role a road plays in a road system and the types of 
>> trips (volume and length) it supports based on travel demand and trip 
>> generation. This is what the Highway Functional Classification System is 
>> designed for. It is used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations to 
>> distribute transportation funding.
>>
>> A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a 
>> person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to 
>> classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see 
>> on the ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not the 
>> same.
>>
>> I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the highway 
>> tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways have photos 
>> and describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine system or function 
>> from a photograph.  I also think it is what the Census Feature Class Code 
>> definitions describe.
>>
>
> 2,3 define what a navi or routing engine should use for best/fastest route 
> and there is a wide agreement in many countries that this is how the highway 
> tag should be used. no hard rule defined by either one. also local and 
> relative importance of a road plays a role. In a city a 2-3 lane road might 
> be tertiary but out in the country a primary road may have one lane in each 
> direction.
>
> good old discussion on this topic
> http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-us@openstreetmap.org/msg00594.html
>
>
>> I would like to see all three dimensions.
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: David ``Smith'' [mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM
>> To: McGuire, Matthew
>> Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road 
>> tagging
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew
>>  wrote:
>>> The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of 
>>> roads.
>>> This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
>>>
>>> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
>>>
>>> This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However 
>>> most roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER 
>>> from the tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.
>>
>> The original TIGER import did in fact use CFCCs to determine highway
>> class.  It produced values of motorway, motorway_link, primary,
>> secondary, and residential.  We've been refining that for 3 years now.
>> The problem is, this comes from the Census Bureau.  They really don't
>> care about a road's functional importance.  There are CFCCs for many
>> other things besides roads.  And the few CFCCs assigned for road
>> features are essentially based on whether the road is an Interstate, a
>> US route, or a State Route, which doesn't correlate well with a road's
>> functional classification.
>>
>> What's more useful is the Highway Functional Classification System.
>> The name sounds like what we want to do.  And it's from the Federal
>> Highway Administration, so they actually care about roads.  I've also
>> put forward guidelines for translating HFCS to OSM.
>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Discussion>
>> (Sort of buried in a wall of text.  I should probably repost those
>> guidelines in my userspace.)
>>
>> --
>> David "Smith"
>> a.k.a. Vid the Kid
>> a.k.a. Bír'd'in
>>
>> Does this font make me look fat?
>> ___
>> 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
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 4 Mar 2010, at 9:38 , McGuire, Matthew wrote:

> I see three dimensions of road classification at play here.
> 
> 1) System
> 2) Function
> 3) Observed Character
> 
> System is the easy one. That is the road system(s) that that the road belongs 
> to especially for signage, but also for road funding channels, and 
> maintenance responsibility.  And I agree that in practice, Census Feature 
> Class Codes have been used (incorrectly) to identify the system to which a 
> road belongs.
> 

exactly, we should start tagging this with an operator tag or something 
similar. many  osm mappers don't care but road enthusiasts do.

> Function describes the role a road plays in a road system and the types of 
> trips (volume and length) it supports based on travel demand and trip 
> generation. This is what the Highway Functional Classification System is 
> designed for. It is used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations to distribute 
> transportation funding.
> 
> A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a person 
> on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to classify 
> the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see on the 
> ground. Character is highly correlated with function, but is not the same.
> 
> I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the highway 
> tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways have photos 
> and describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine system or function 
> from a photograph.  I also think it is what the Census Feature Class Code 
> definitions describe.
> 

2,3 define what a navi or routing engine should use for best/fastest route and 
there is a wide agreement in many countries that this is how the highway tag 
should be used. no hard rule defined by either one. also local and relative 
importance of a road plays a role. In a city a 2-3 lane road might be tertiary 
but out in the country a primary road may have one lane in each direction. 

good old discussion on this topic
http://www.mail-archive.com/talk-us@openstreetmap.org/msg00594.html


> I would like to see all three dimensions.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: David ``Smith'' [mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM
> To: McGuire, Matthew
> Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road 
> tagging
> 
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew
>  wrote:
>> The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of 
>> roads.
>> This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
>> 
>> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
>> 
>> This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However 
>> most roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER 
>> from the tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.
> 
> The original TIGER import did in fact use CFCCs to determine highway
> class.  It produced values of motorway, motorway_link, primary,
> secondary, and residential.  We've been refining that for 3 years now.
> The problem is, this comes from the Census Bureau.  They really don't
> care about a road's functional importance.  There are CFCCs for many
> other things besides roads.  And the few CFCCs assigned for road
> features are essentially based on whether the road is an Interstate, a
> US route, or a State Route, which doesn't correlate well with a road's
> functional classification.
> 
> What's more useful is the Highway Functional Classification System.
> The name sounds like what we want to do.  And it's from the Federal
> Highway Administration, so they actually care about roads.  I've also
> put forward guidelines for translating HFCS to OSM.
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Discussion>
> (Sort of buried in a wall of text.  I should probably repost those
> guidelines in my userspace.)
> 
> --
> David "Smith"
> a.k.a. Vid the Kid
> a.k.a. Bír'd'in
> 
> Does this font make me look fat?
> ___
> 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] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[McGuire, Matthew]

I see three dimensions of road classification at play here.

1) System
2) Function
3) Observed Character

System is the easy one. That is the road system(s) that that the road belongs 
to especially for signage, but also for road funding channels, and maintenance 
responsibility.  And I agree that in practice, Census Feature Class Codes have 
been used (incorrectly) to identify the system to which a road belongs.

Function describes the role a road plays in a road system and the types of 
trips (volume and length) it supports based on travel demand and trip 
generation. This is what the Highway Functional Classification System is 
designed for. It is used by Metropolitan Planning Organizations to distribute 
transportation funding.

A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a person 
on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to classify the 
roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see on the ground. 
Character is highly correlated with function, but is not the same.

I think Observed Character is what OSM is trying to achieve with the highway 
tag. I think this because the OSM tag descriptions for highways have photos and 
describe how the road looks, and you cannot determine system or function from a 
photograph.  I also think it is what the Census Feature Class Code definitions 
describe.

I would like to see all three dimensions.

Matt



-Original Message-
From: David ``Smith'' [mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM
To: McGuire, Matthew
Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew
 wrote:
> The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of 
> roads.
> This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
>
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
>
> This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However 
> most roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER 
> from the tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.

The original TIGER import did in fact use CFCCs to determine highway
class.  It produced values of motorway, motorway_link, primary,
secondary, and residential.  We've been refining that for 3 years now.
 The problem is, this comes from the Census Bureau.  They really don't
care about a road's functional importance.  There are CFCCs for many
other things besides roads.  And the few CFCCs assigned for road
features are essentially based on whether the road is an Interstate, a
US route, or a State Route, which doesn't correlate well with a road's
functional classification.

What's more useful is the Highway Functional Classification System.
The name sounds like what we want to do.  And it's from the Federal
Highway Administration, so they actually care about roads.  I've also
put forward guidelines for translating HFCS to OSM.
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Discussion>
(Sort of buried in a wall of text.  I should probably repost those
guidelines in my userspace.)

--
David "Smith"
a.k.a. Vid the Kid
a.k.a. Bír'd'in

Does this font make me look fat?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[David ``Smith'']

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew
 wrote:
> The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of 
> roads.
> This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
>
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
>
> This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However 
> most roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER 
> from the tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.

The original TIGER import did in fact use CFCCs to determine highway
class.  It produced values of motorway, motorway_link, primary,
secondary, and residential.  We've been refining that for 3 years now.
 The problem is, this comes from the Census Bureau.  They really don't
care about a road's functional importance.  There are CFCCs for many
other things besides roads.  And the few CFCCs assigned for road
features are essentially based on whether the road is an Interstate, a
US route, or a State Route, which doesn't correlate well with a road's
functional classification.

What's more useful is the Highway Functional Classification System.
The name sounds like what we want to do.  And it's from the Federal
Highway Administration, so they actually care about roads.  I've also
put forward guidelines for translating HFCS to OSM.

(Sort of buried in a wall of text.  I should probably repost those
guidelines in my userspace.)

-- 
David "Smith"
a.k.a. Vid the Kid
a.k.a. Bír'd'in

Does this font make me look fat?

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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[McGuire, Matthew]

Either way, it's biggest problem is that it isn't filled in rigorously.

I'm just throwing it out there as an existing well known set of road 
classifications designed for the US.

-Original Message-
From: Apollinaris Schoell [mailto:ascho...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:00 PM
To: McGuire, Matthew
Cc: Nathan Edgars II; Talk Openstreetmap; Dave Hansen
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging



On 3 Mar 2010, at 7:45 , McGuire, Matthew wrote:

> The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of 
> roads.
> This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
>
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
>
> This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However 
> most roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER 
> from the tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.
>

Don't think this will help much. I am sure this was used during tiger import 
already. Dave will know.


> -Original Message-
> From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
> [mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Edgars II
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:19 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging
>
> I'm proposing a couple first principles to govern whatever we decide
> on for tagging. Please discuss here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Proposed_first_principles
>



Nathan, thanks for starting this. From the experience in the last years I think 
it will not work well this way because of the anarchy, lack of time, endless 
discussions ...
this wiki page is huge and it will be easier to work on a topic at a time. Set 
a schedule for completion date discuss till then and document the agreement in 
the wiki. And then move any discussion elsewhere to have a compact reference as 
the main page. Just to make clear I am not calling for a dictatorship agreement 
can be also to disagree and variants can be documented on the main page too 
with a comment that there is multiple flavors.
already now it seems to go into direction of endless discussion with no final 
agreement as many discussions before.
Not sure why I don't get emails for updates on the wiki so it's really hard to 
follow.




> ___
> 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


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Apollinaris Schoell]

On 3 Mar 2010, at 7:45 , McGuire, Matthew wrote:

> The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of 
> roads.
> This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
> 
> http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
> 
> This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However 
> most roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER 
> from the tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.
> 

Don't think this will help much. I am sure this was used during tiger import 
already. Dave will know. 


> -Original Message-
> From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
> [mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Edgars II
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:19 PM
> To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging
> 
> I'm proposing a couple first principles to govern whatever we decide
> on for tagging. Please discuss here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Proposed_first_principles
> 



Nathan, thanks for starting this. From the experience in the last years I think 
it will not work well this way because of the anarchy, lack of time, endless 
discussions …
this wiki page is huge and it will be easier to work on a topic at a time. Set 
a schedule for completion date discuss till then and document the agreement in 
the wiki. And then move any discussion elsewhere to have a compact reference as 
the main page. Just to make clear I am not calling for a dictatorship agreement 
can be also to disagree and variants can be documented on the main page too 
with a comment that there is multiple flavors. 
already now it seems to go into direction of endless discussion with no final 
agreement as many discussions before. 
Not sure why I don't get emails for updates on the wiki so it's really hard to 
follow. 




> ___
> 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


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

Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[McGuire, Matthew]

The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of roads.
This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc

This designation exists in many OSM roads tagged with TIGER:CFCC. However most 
roads could definitely use some refinement. We could strip the TIGER from the 
tag to just cfcc then refine it from there.

-Original Message-
From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org 
[mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Edgars II
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:19 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

I'm proposing a couple first principles to govern whatever we decide
on for tagging. Please discuss here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Proposed_first_principles

___
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

[Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging

[Nathan Edgars II]

I'm proposing a couple first principles to govern whatever we decide
on for tagging. Please discuss here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Proposed_first_principles

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