Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Richard Fairhurst]

Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> The routing engine should be able to take into account 
> the road surface

It can and often does. Your problem there is that only 2% of highway= ways
in the US are explicitly tagged with surface; probably only 30% are
implicitly tagged; and sometimes the implicit stuff gets broken, like when
people start retagging gravel roads as secondary without adding a surface
tag. (Numbers are estimates but I think not far off.)

> Any idea why trunk was established in the first place? 

It's a word from the UK road classification system, because OSM was invented
in the UK. But the letters in the word aren't really important.

OSM has five broad-brush motor-road tags (trunk, primary, secondary,
tertiary, unclassified), plus special-case ones at either end of the
hierarchy (motorway for limited-access high-speed roads, residential for
roads with the main purpose of providing access to houses on that road). If
you don't think you need five, you don't need to use all five. If you need
more than five, you are free to use additional tags to supply extra nuance,
as the Germans do with motorroad=yes. I would say that 15 years is probably
more than enough time to decide what roads you're putting in what category,
but hey, this is OSM.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mateusz Konieczny]

20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

> So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, 
> tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, 
> major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with 
> Texas and Missouri and their extensive secondary systems), 
> major/minor_collector...the US just has a way more complex view of how 
> highways work.  
>
> Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS>  (but perhaps 
> with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new "highway=quartinary".
>
Fitting thing like road classification
into UK system is irritating at times.

But idea of each country with separate tags
for roads is simply a bad idea.

This info is probably worth recording,
but legal status should go into a separate tag.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
> to the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd
> consider as one outcome.
>

I'd like to see a lot more left up to the data consumer and more regional
values to be widely acceptable.  For example, instead of trying to smash
the entire planet into the UK's prescribed values and trying to come up
with equivalences, use the terminology each country uses.  So, for example,
in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary,
perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, major/minor_principal
(just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with Texas and Missouri and
their extensive secondary systems), major/minor_collector...the US just has
a way more complex view of how highways work.

Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS (but perhaps
with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new "highway=quartinary".

Much like moving route refs to highway relations (freeing the ref=* tag on
highways for situations where the road and the route have different refs),
leaving the mental gymnastics up to an algorithm and leaving less confusion
to the mapper is getting to be long overdue.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Paul Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N  wrote:

> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>Some massive changes such as in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which
> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are
> the most important.
>

This smashing everything to the highest possible value I would generally
consider to be an undiscussed and problematic mechanical edit.  Going with
the lowest level that fits feels a bit more correct (think "minimum
effective dose" from medicine, for example), does give routers more
information where there's lots of routes available, and humans more of an
idea what kind of road they're going to encounter at a glance.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary

[stevea]

I now reiterate the fundamental struggle in this discussion (which can be 
summed up as "both"):

highway=trunk is another level of granularity (above primary) to describe "high 
performance OR high importance roads" (emphasis mine).  Additionally,

(from the US-specific definition from our wiki):  highway=trunk is a "surface 
expressway:  a relatively high-speed divided road (at least 40 MPH with a 
barrier or median separating each direction of traffic), with a limited amount 
of intersections and driveways; or a major intercity highway."

Similar to "descriptive vs. prescriptive," this semantic "struggle" might be 
described as these two definitions being "relative vs. absolute."

Some people say a gravel road (or even a dirt road, if that dominates, say, in 
a developing country) is important enough to be tagged "trunk," for example in 
Alaska.  That is using "trunk" in its relative sense:  relative as to what is 
also meant by primary, secondary, etc. IN THAT LOCAL/REGIONAL CONTEXT.  Some 
people say "trunk must be divided with a barrier/median and medium-to-higher 
speed..." (or fill in some hand-waving additions).  That is using "trunk" in 
its absolute sense.

"Both."  Yes, both.  I'll say it again, OSM, I doubt it very much, will ever, 
EVER get away from how we now define "trunk" as "both."  Look at our wiki and 
see how there are differing definitions for differing countries and see how we 
define it relatively.  Look at our wiki's text and see how we define it 
absolutely.  Both.

Can we (as humans) and routers (as software) learn to live with this apparent 
dichotomy?  I can.  I believe the rest of us (humans and routers alike) can, 
too.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Eric H. Christensen via Talk-us]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:19 PM, Martijn van Exel  wrote:

> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to 
> the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to 
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd 
> consider as one outcome.

It does seem like there is a lot of arbitrary conditions separating some of 
these road types.  It would be nice to have solid reasoning for tagging a 
roadway a certain way instead of how "important" it is.

The routing engine should be able to take into account the road surface, number 
of stop lights, and other factors into consideration if there are multiple 
routes of similar highways that are "important", IMO.  Any idea why trunk was 
established in the first place?

--Sparks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: ProtonMail
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=uMfV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Martijn van Exel]

I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
to the U.S. map, Eric.
We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
envisage taking some away.
Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd
consider as one outcome.
Martijn

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:27 AM Eric Ladner  wrote:

> I personally dislike "trunk".  Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to
> interpretation (and argument).  It doesn't really add anything to the
> information on the map, IMO.  A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of
> how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has.
>
> Maybe if the definition of "trunk" was solidified to something more
> specific, it would have a more valuable use case.
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:15 AM Mike N  wrote:
>
>> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
>> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
>> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>>
>> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
>> sense.
>>
>>Some massive changes such as in
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which
>> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are
>> the most important.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Eric Ladner
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Eric Ladner]

I personally dislike "trunk".  Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to
interpretation (and argument).  It doesn't really add anything to the
information on the map, IMO.  A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of
how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has.

Maybe if the definition of "trunk" was solidified to something more
specific, it would have a more valuable use case.

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:15 AM Mike N  wrote:

> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>Some massive changes such as in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which
> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are
> the most important.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Mike N]

On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as 
primary doesn???t make any sense;


The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes 
sense.


  Some massive changes such as in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which 
have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are 
the most important.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Evin Fairchild]

Okay, this is going to be a long message, but I’d strongly suggest you read ALL 
of it before responding.

I’d first like to address the assumption that some people seem to have that 
those who support using trunk on roads other than divided highways are “tagging 
for the renderer” because we allegedly just want to see these roads appear at 
lower zoom levels. For me, that is NOT the case at all.

In reality, I support having trunk for major intercity highways because there 
needs to be more levels of indicating importance for US highways than just 
primary. For example, in Nevada, US 50 and US 6 are very lightly-traveled roads 
that only connect a few small towns in Nevada, and are known for having very 
little traffic. Tagging them as primary is perfectly fine IMO. However, US 95 
connects the two biggest cities in Nevada—Las Vegas and Reno—but it’s also 
tagged as primary. Surely US 95 between Vegas and Reno is more important than 
US 6 and US 50, right?

In my home state of Washington, there are two US routes that cross the Cascade 
Mountains, US 12 and US 2, both currently tagged as primary. Both of these 
roads are kept open in winter thru the Cascades. However, there is another road 
that crosses the Cascades, WA 20, that is also currently tagged as primary 
(which makes sense given that it is a very important cross-state highway), but 
it is NOT kept open in the winter. It doesn’t make any sense that a road that 
is not open in the winter is tagged at the same importance level as other roads 
that are kept open in the winter!

Secondly, I think some things from the wiki need to be pointed out here. On the 
wiki page for Key:highway, [1] the definition of highway=trunk is “The most 
important roads in a country's system that aren't motorways. (Need not 
necessarily be a divided highway.)” Those who say “Trunk roads should ONLY be 
divided highways, no ifs, ands, or buts” are going against what is explicitly 
stated on the wiki page for key:highway. 

Also, at the bottom of the aforementioned wiki page, there is a section 
entitled "Assumptions,” which states in the first paragraph: 

“Only highway=motorway/motorway_link implies anything about quality. Other road 
types, from highway=trunk through highway=tertiary to 
highway=residential=residential/service or highway=path/footway/cycleway/track 
do not imply anything about road quality.” 

These words speak for themselves. 

Now, if we want to indicate road quality in some way (e.g. whether a road is 
divided or not), we ought to use the expressway=* tag like others have 
suggested rather than using the highway=trunk tag just for that. 

Even if you don’t use the expressway tag, you can still tell if a trunk road is 
divided or not because the default render shows divided roads as having a 
thicker line than undivided roads. A good example can be seen by looking at 
western Canada, where the most important intercity roads are tagged as trunk 
regardless of whether they’re divided or not. [3] You can clearly tell if a 
road is divided or not even if undivided roads are tagged as trunk because the 
divided roads have a thicker line than the undivided. Therefore, it is not 
necessary to reserve highway=trunk for divided roads only.

TL;DR I support tagging undivided roads as trunk because 1) some US routes are 
more important than others and lumping them all as primary doesn’t make any 
sense; 2) the wiki says that only the motorway designation implies anything 
about quality of the road; and 3) the renderer shows divided roads with a 
thicker line than undivided roads. 

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Roads
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Assumptions
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/51.618/-112.972

From: Greg Troxel
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 1:16 PM
To: Paul Johnson
Cc: Mike N; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

Paul Johnson  writes:

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N  wrote:
>
>>
>>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
>> 2 points of view:  on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
>> coherent network of interconnected roads.
>
> In which case, rendering based on network on the route relations would be
> more appropriate.

This is the crux of the matter.  Calling things trunk so they render is
tagging for the renderer in a bad way.

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

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson  writes:

> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N  wrote:
>
>>
>>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
>> 2 points of view:  on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
>> coherent network of interconnected roads.
>
> In which case, rendering based on network on the route relations would be
> more appropriate.

This is the crux of the matter.  Calling things trunk so they render is
tagging for the renderer in a bad way.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N  wrote:

>
>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
> 2 points of view:  on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
> coherent network of interconnected roads.


In which case, rendering based on network on the route relations would be
more appropriate.


>In the end, this would suffer from the same connectivity issue:
> should the US highway remain a trunk as it reduces to 2 lanes and drops
> to 30mph passing through a tourist area?   Would that tend to draw GPS
> navigation routes from nearby faster, parallel streets?


No.  What usually causes this is a regional speed limit where the local
speed is not yet known to OSM and/or priority signage hasn't been mapped
yet that obviate staying on the highway as the best route to the renderer
based on ground truth.


> Or would it
> look like an ugly gap in the trunk road if it switched to primary in
> that tourist area?
>

Depends on if you're rendering based on class or based on network.


>As an aside, I sense that the tendency to upgrade results in all OSM
> streets being promoted by one level, resulting in a compression at the
> top end and less class distinction at those levels.
>

This tends to be the case.  Seems like based on the AK2 conversation, this
is a prolific problem in northern Canada, where roads are uncommon in
general.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Ian Dees]

Hi folks,

This conversation is over. If we can't have a conversation about highway
tagging without making personal attacks, then we can't have the
conversation.

Please work harder to stay on topic, have empathy towards your fellow
mapper, and have constructive conversations.

The mailing list is in "emergency moderation" mode for the night.

-Ian

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:30 PM Nathan Mills  wrote:

> The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has
> said the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The
> debate is entirely about where the classification change takes place. There
> are several instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In
> AHTD's highway log, they cease to be a motorway wherever legal access
> control or the character of the road changes. Sometimes they do make the
> demarcation at an interchange (usually at the point where the intersecting
> roadway crosses) when the continuation is a short distance.
>
> Given Arkansas law, the state's view is nearly always easily seen from
> speed limit signs thanks to very specific per se speed limits based on
> highway classification. Sadly (for this particular discussion), Oklahoma
> doesn't, though speed limit changes do often accompany clear changes in
> roadway classification.
>
> The overall point being that there are in fact times when classification
> changes at a place other than an interchange.
>
> It's been many years, but I recall there being a speed limit reduction
> northbound coming down the hill to the intersection in question. And again,
> I fail to see how adding an intersection magically changed the 3/4 of a
> mile between Apache and where the median disappears to accommodate the
> Gilcrease intersection. (I incorrectly called the extension past the
> Tisdale Apache in a previous message. I forget the actual name, west of the
> Tisdale, but it has one that is not Gilcrease)
>
> It would be nice if you would stop acting as if there is no room for
> reasonable people to have differing opinions on this since even various
> state governments have differing opinions on the matter. It's mildly rude
> to pretend that yours is the only logical possibility, especially when
> several people have considered your argument and still don't agree.
>
> All that said, at the moment you're the only person currently local to the
> instant case, so given the guideline that encourages us to defer to local
> mappers if their edits aren't broken in some technical way or obviously
> depart from reality, you're more than welcome to tag it the way you did if
> you like.
>
> Still, it was a change from what another local had tagged originally. The
> TIGER import became irrelevant in relation to this discussion when someone
> took the time to add the other carriageway. This isn't a situation where
> the edit in question was being made to a way that was created by the TIGER
> import and not touched by anybody except a few bots since, so the norms
> surrounding that scenario aren't applicable.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On December 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM EST, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>>
>> The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
>> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
>> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
>> distinction.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>>

 On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and
> the six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>

 Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
 a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.


> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make
> you reconsider?
>

 Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
 intersections.  Good luck!

>>>
>>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>>
>>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>>> interchange 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Nathan Mills]

The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has said 
the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The debate is 
entirely about where the classification change takes place. There are several 
instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In AHTD's highway log, 
they cease to be a motorway wherever legal access control or the character of 
the road changes. Sometimes they do make the demarcation at an interchange 
(usually at the point where the intersecting roadway crosses) when the 
continuation is a short distance.

Given Arkansas law, the state's view is nearly always easily seen from speed 
limit signs thanks to very specific per se speed limits based on highway 
classification. Sadly (for this particular discussion), Oklahoma doesn't, 
though speed limit changes do often accompany clear changes in roadway 
classification.

The overall point being that there are in fact times when classification 
changes at a place other than an interchange.

It's been many years, but I recall there being a speed limit reduction 
northbound coming down the hill to the intersection in question. And again, I 
fail to see how adding an intersection magically changed the 3/4 of a mile 
between Apache and where the median disappears to accommodate the Gilcrease 
intersection. (I incorrectly called the extension past the Tisdale Apache in a 
previous message. I forget the actual name, west of the Tisdale, but it has one 
that is not Gilcrease)

It would be nice if you would stop acting as if there is no room for reasonable 
people to have differing opinions on this since even various state governments 
have differing opinions on the matter. It's mildly rude to pretend that yours 
is the only logical possibility, especially when several people have considered 
your argument and still don't agree.

All that said, at the moment you're the only person currently local to the 
instant case, so given the guideline that encourages us to defer to local 
mappers if their edits aren't broken in some technical way or obviously depart 
from reality, you're more than welcome to tag it the way you did if you like.

Still, it was a change from what another local had tagged originally. The TIGER 
import became irrelevant in relation to this discussion when someone took the 
time to add the other carriageway. This isn't a situation where the edit in 
question was being made to a way that was created by the TIGER import and not 
touched by anybody except a few bots since, so the norms surrounding that 
scenario aren't applicable.

-Nathan

On December 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM EST, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
>junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
>honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
>distinction.
>
>On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco 
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel 
>wrote:
>>>
 I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and
>the
 six or so people on that changeset 64919426

>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's
>also a
>>> number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
 discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make
>you
 reconsider?

>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm
>a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following
>along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a
>motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in
>a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing
>roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there
>will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or
>slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone
>to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to
>change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the
>last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both
>sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same --
>where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics
>of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far
>over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

Links please?

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:06 PM Paul Johnson 
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>
>> You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're
>> saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against
>> federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue
>> thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that!
>>
>
> Sure, if the federal guidelines actually said that.  But they exclude all
> surface intersections.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

Sure thing, go back to about the last year of his edits.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:06 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the
> way you're describing?
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson 
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the
>>> posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples
>>> of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible
>>> change in road geometry, for that matter), but I haven't been able to find
>>> any examples of what Paul is proposing, except for the ones he has edited
>>> himself.
>>>
>>
>> Are there any that don't date back to either the TIGER import or NE2's
>> tag torquing?
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're
> saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against
> federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue
> thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that!
>

Sure, if the federal guidelines actually said that.  But they exclude all
surface intersections.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the
way you're describing?

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson 
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas  wrote:
>
>> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the
>> posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples
>> of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible
>> change in road geometry, for that matter), but I haven't been able to find
>> any examples of what Paul is proposing, except for the ones he has edited
>> himself.
>>
>
> Are there any that don't date back to either the TIGER import or NE2's tag
> torquing?
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're
saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against
federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue
thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that!

I'm really getting frustrated with the way you're deliberately
misrepresenting this discussion, so frankly I'm going to bow out since I
don't know what else to say to convince you to change your opinion on this
issue.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 2:55 PM Paul Johnson  On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>
>> Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to
>> make us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing
>> things. There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty
>> much all want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first
>> at grade intersection, we think roads with at grade intersections can be
>> classified as motorways.
>>
>
>  There's no reason to get personally derogatory on this.  Where's the
> problem with limiting motorway to what generally meets federal guidelines
> on what constitutes a freeway?
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas  wrote:

> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the
> posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples
> of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible
> change in road geometry, for that matter), but I haven't been able to find
> any examples of what Paul is proposing, except for the ones he has edited
> himself.
>

Are there any that don't date back to either the TIGER import or NE2's tag
torquing?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make
> us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things.
> There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all
> want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first at grade
> intersection, we think roads with at grade intersections can be classified
> as motorways.
>

 There's no reason to get personally derogatory on this.  Where's the
problem with limiting motorway to what generally meets federal guidelines
on what constitutes a freeway?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

> I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway
> (or even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far
> enough beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are
> the same as the rest of the motorway, the roadway is functionally a
> motorway.
>

So where is the argument here?  In this case, the speed limits start
dropping (and in the opposite direction, don't get up to full speed) until
the Apache junction.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make
us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things.
There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all
want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first at grade
intersection, we think roads with at grade intersections can be classified
as motorways.

-Evin (compdude)

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 2:05 PM Paul Johnson  The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
> distinction.
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>>
 I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
 six or so people on that changeset 64919426

>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
>>> a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
 discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
 reconsider?

>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Adam Franco]

I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway (or
even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far enough
beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are the
same as the rest of the motorway, the roadway is functionally a motorway. I
think the issue is that you take the word "include" to mean any segment
possibly touching a surface junction, at any distance from that junction.
It seems that most of the rest of us feel that there is some distance (e.g.
over the horizon, miles away, before a speed reduction, etc) where junction
is far enough off that it is separate from the character of the roadway one
is on.

I've never been to OK and don't know your roadway in question well enough
to weigh in on that specific case, but I would oppose a rule that said that
motorways can never continue to the position where the road character
changes (e.g. signage, speed reduction) leading to a final surface
intersection.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:03 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
> distinction.
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>>
 I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
 six or so people on that changeset 64919426

>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
>>> a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
 discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
 reconsider?

>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Michael Corey]

Unsubscribe

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 6:18 PM Paul Johnson  Can I get some voice of reason in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be
> quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are
> trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which
> is obviously incorrect.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
distinction.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>
>>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
>>> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>>>
>>
>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also a
>> number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>
>>
>>> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
>>> reconsider?
>>>
>>
>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>
>
> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>
> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
> classification.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Adam Franco]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
>> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>>
>
> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also a
> number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>
>
>> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
>> reconsider?
>>
>
> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
> intersections.  Good luck!
>

Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
classification may continue beyond the last interchange.

If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
"motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
classification.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
>> Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though?
>>
>
> No, I don't think so.  It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the
> side heading towards the intersection.
>
>
> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>

Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also a
number of people in this thread that do agree with me.


> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
> reconsider?
>

Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
intersections.  Good luck!

> What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street
>> interchange just looks weird.
>>
>
> So why should we tag for the renderer?
>
>
> In this case, the renderer is correct, and it’s making your unusual
> tagging preference stand out clearly on the map.
> Would you at least consider tagging the last 500 feet or so as
> motorway_link?
>

It's not a mutual split, though; it's the mainline.  I don't think anybody
would argue link is appropriate in this context.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Bryan Housel]

> On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel  > wrote:
> Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?
> 
> No, I don't think so.  It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the 
> side heading towards the intersection.

I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the six or 
so people on that changeset 64919426 discussion all disagree with you.  Is 
there nothing that would make you reconsider? 

The “freeway traffic pattern” is just a guide, right?  I’m sure you wouldn’t 
downgrade motorways around stuff like toll plazas and bridge/tunnel approaches 
just because the traffic slows down there..

>  
> What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange 
> just looks weird.
> 
> So why should we tag for the renderer?

In this case, the renderer is correct, and it’s making your unusual tagging 
preference stand out clearly on the map.
Would you at least consider tagging the last 500 feet or so as motorway_link?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though?
>

No, I don't think so.  It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the
side heading towards the intersection.


> What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street
> interchange just looks weird.
>

So why should we tag for the renderer?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:01 PM  wrote:

> [forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richie Kennedy 
> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM
> To: Paul Johnson 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk.
>
> Disagree vehemently. I do not believe that a Super-Two should be
> classified differently than its four-lane counterparts
>

They don't even work like regular freeways.  You can't pass, and even if
you can, it's limited by oncoming traffic and onramps.  Freeways are dual
carriageway, fully controlled, grade separated and high speed; anything
that doesn't meet that shouldn't be tagged as motorway.


> > Dual carriageway, at-grade intersections but otherwise freeway like?
> Trunk.
>
> It seems the question in this thread is “Where does a Motorway end and a
> Trunk begin” where there is a stretch containing at-grade intersections
> between two segments that could otherwise qualify as motorway.
>

I generally consider the last junction with another motorway to be a good
place, though the first grade separated junction to be a good compromise.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[richiekennedy56]

[forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error]

-Original Message-
From: Richie Kennedy  
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM
To: Paul Johnson 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway


> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk. 

Disagree vehemently. I do not believe that a Super-Two should be classified 
differently than its four-lane counterparts

> Dual carriageway, at-grade intersections but otherwise freeway like?  Trunk. 

It seems the question in this thread is “Where does a Motorway end and a Trunk 
begin” where there is a stretch containing at-grade intersections between two 
segments that could otherwise qualify as motorway.

In my neck of the woods, we have Watkins Drive, where by a consent decree, 
there are intersections and traffic lights. There is a clear demarcation 
between Motorway and Trunk - the speed limit drops to 45 MPH before the 
non-Motorway stretch, then goes back to 55 MPH when controlled access 
continues. Therefore, I would transition from motorway to trunk at the speed 
limit transition 

Then I also have K-7 between Olathe and Bonner Springs, where KDOT has 
incrementally upgraded the road. From Olathe heading north, there are four 
interchanges (119th, College, K-10, Prairie Star Parkway) an driveway 
intersection, an interchange at 83rd, an intersection at 75th, interchanges for 
Shawnee Mission Parkway and Johnson Drive, intersectons at 47th and 43rd, and 
Interchanges at K-32 and Nettleton. I would mark off as Motorway from the PSP 
interchange south and from 43rd north to Nettleton, and in the middle section 
including the Johnson and SMP interchanges. As 83rd is a single interchange 
between two intersections, it would not be given a Motorway designation. 

First, I would look for any field-verifiable transition (e.g. pavement or speed 
limit changesj between an interchange and intersection. If there isn’t one, I’d 
be inclined to either make the transition at the start of a turn lane or at the 
end of an acceleration lane. 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Albert Pundt]

"Tagging freeway ending/beginnings with this scheme is definitely not
standard practice in the US"

By "this scheme," do you mean motorway up to intersection or motorway only
up to last ramp merge? The former is almost everywhere in the US and I very
rarely see the latter. Even after browsing the west and central US just
now, I only saw a handful of motorways ending at the last ramp merge,
including the examples around Tulsa from the original message. From what
I've seen, this practice is almost nonexistent on the east coast, which has
not only more freeways but also more fragmented freeways to serve as
examples.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:09 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> > Can I get some voice of reason in
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be
> quite
> > a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying
> to
> > propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is
> > obviously incorrect.
>
> I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I'd like to agree with
> the other voices here that this scheme is overly pedantic without any
> real justification for being so. No-one is saying that the motorway
> has an at-grade intersection as you assert; the motorway simply
> begins/ends *at* that intersection. Tagging freeway ending/beginnings
> with this scheme is definitely not standard practice in the US, and I
> don't see how changing this just to split hairs over freeway
> definitions would benefit anyone.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Bradley White]

> Can I get some voice of reason in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be quite
> a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to
> propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is
> obviously incorrect.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I'd like to agree with
the other voices here that this scheme is overly pedantic without any
real justification for being so. No-one is saying that the motorway
has an at-grade intersection as you assert; the motorway simply
begins/ends *at* that intersection. Tagging freeway ending/beginnings
with this scheme is definitely not standard practice in the US, and I
don't see how changing this just to split hairs over freeway
definitions would benefit anyone.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

I'm largely in agreement and this seems like how it's been done in
practice.  Would also apply to WA 500 (which also should be a trunk east of
I 205, if not at least 112th/Gher; with argument supporting 205 being that
112th/Gher is largely only used by way of it's I 205 North exit and
supporting Gher as the break as it doesn't start slowing down until just
before the WA 500 East merge), and until recently, the entire length west
of the traffic light with Fourth Plain.

There's been a long tendency towards escalating highway priority, which
kind of dilutes all of the definitions and overloads secondary, primary,
trunk and motorway, that I've been trying to resist.  Like US 26 from where
it goes single-carriageway east should be primary, same with US 97 north of
Bend Parkway

 and south of Century Drive

until
the Klamath Falls Pilot

and
then again south of Reams Country Club
,
to use some more examples I'm very familiar with on the ground.  About the
least motorway-like thing I'd call a motorway would be Arroyo Seco Parkway
(most ramps are RORO with stop signs and no merge space, really not having
changed much since it was parodied in 1950's Motor Mania
.

Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk.  Dual carriageway, at-grade
intersections but otherwise freeway like?  Trunk.  Traffic lights?  Trunk.
Fully controlled, fully grade seperated, high speed design?  Motorway.
Random 100km+ stretch of standard interstate-style highway

 (TLDR version
)
that passes a cow pasture whose only frontage is the freeway, accessible
only through a private gate in the freeway fence?  Motorway.

Another set of situations I'm familiar with:  I 5 north of WA 543 (trucks
prohibited, frequently stopped traffic to that point, speed limit gets down
to 10 MPH, passes through several crosswalks, then not long after that and
enters Canada, and doesn't properly continue as freeway again until the 8
Ave interchange on BC 99.  Nearly the mirror situation at the opposite end
of I 5, it and 805 south of the San Ysidro interchange with the Mexican
side currently mapped correctly.  Neither are remotely like, say, taking
Germany's A 6 onto France's A 320 where everything's free flowing, and no
checkpoint and not driving in a park.  A really good edge case would be
between motorway and trunk would be I 5 between OR 99E and WA 14 (traffic
lights for/and a draw bridge, no shoulders, and a blind sharp right turn at
the north end northbound).

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:36 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Bryan Housel  writes:
>
> > Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?
>
> Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road
> that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway.  The basic
> issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local
> property of a road, and is really a statement about the road before and
> after where one is talking about.
>
> Assume an infinitely long road, divided, 2 lanes each way.  After a very
> long time of no intersections, assume an at-grade intersection, and call
> this coordinate 0, expressed in km.
>
> Then, assume an another at-grade intersection at 0.100.  After that, at
> 0.110, and so on, with each being 1.1 times the previous.
>
> By the time you get to 500 km between at-grade intersections, the
> intevening roads are surely motorways.  At 100m, they surely are not.
>
> In my view, to be tagged as motorway, the length of qualifying roadway
> has to be long enough so that it feels like it is very long, as opposed
> to a lucky 2 to 3-mile stretch of trunk that happens not to have any
> intersections.
>
> Overall, I would throw out that if a section that meets motorway specs
> isn't at least 10 miles, it's still really nice trunk, and should not be
> tagged motorway.  Maybe 10 is too much and it should be 5 mi, or 10km,
> or maybe it should be 20 or 25 km.   But 1-2 miles is way too short to
> flip back and forth.
>
>
> I have no  idea if this supports or opposes Paul in this case :-)  But
> I'm guessing it supports...
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Greg Troxel]

Bryan Housel  writes:

> Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road
that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway.  The basic
issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local
property of a road, and is really a statement about the road before and
after where one is talking about.

Assume an infinitely long road, divided, 2 lanes each way.  After a very
long time of no intersections, assume an at-grade intersection, and call
this coordinate 0, expressed in km.

Then, assume an another at-grade intersection at 0.100.  After that, at
0.110, and so on, with each being 1.1 times the previous.

By the time you get to 500 km between at-grade intersections, the
intevening roads are surely motorways.  At 100m, they surely are not.

In my view, to be tagged as motorway, the length of qualifying roadway
has to be long enough so that it feels like it is very long, as opposed
to a lucky 2 to 3-mile stretch of trunk that happens not to have any
intersections.

Overall, I would throw out that if a section that meets motorway specs
isn't at least 10 miles, it's still really nice trunk, and should not be
tagged motorway.  Maybe 10 is too much and it should be 5 mi, or 10km,
or maybe it should be 20 or 25 km.   But 1-2 miles is way too short to
flip back and forth.


I have no  idea if this supports or opposes Paul in this case :-)  But
I'm guessing it supports...

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Bryan Housel]

Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange 
just looks weird.
Sorry, but I have to disagree, and would leave it as a motorway up to 
Gilcrease, then trunk beyond that point.

For comparison, our Garden State Parkway in NJ ends at an at grade intersection 
at Exit 0 in Cape May, and I think this is fine.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4904630893#map=17/38.96139/-74.90345 


Thanks, Bryan



> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Can I get some voice of reason in 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426 
> ?  There seems to be quite 
> a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to 
> propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is 
> obviously incorrect.
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Martijn van Exel]

Okay folks. Coming back from not even 48 hours camping and this thread has
exploded. I don't think it benefits anyone to continue in this way.
Valuable insights get lost in the sheer volume of email; arguments are
being repeated.

I am dedicating the next Many Mappy Minutes (our monthly-ish online
hangout) to discuss road classification. I proposed November 15 5:30 PT in
an earlier email to this group. I invite you all to join then.

In the mean time, if you would like to have a more interactive discussion,
please join IRC or Slack and continue the discussion there.

Martijn

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Nathan Mills  wrote:

> In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag
> importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary.
> Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always
> been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to use it
> more like motorway but for divided highways and people who want it to mean
> more primary than primary.
>
> That's why we're still taking about it now, long after the usage of other
> highway tag values has long been settled. The closest thing to a decision
> that was ever made was NE2's unilateral mass edit, some of which has been
> reverted, some of which hasn't. Without consensus that the tagging is wrong
> and not just the unilateral decision, I'm not going to go out of my way to
> revert his trunk changes on ways I'm not otherwise editing large portions
> of. It's not a nice thing to do. It's got nothing to do with thinking that
> things should be that way and everything to do with not being a jackass who
> unilaterally imposes their will on the whole community.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On October 15, 2017 1:40:16 AM EDT, Bradley White <
> theangrytom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag
>> fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground,
>> why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag
>> altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson  
>> wrote:
>>>

  The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways.  Are we trying to
  document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
  connected?  If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway 
 and
  a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97.  If we're
  going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
  everything into trunk.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keep hitting send too soon.  Personally, I find what's on the ground to be
>>> more useful than the connections.  Game theory and any routing engine can
>>> figure out the connections.  But knowing what's a stupid rural road with an
>>> overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is
>>> more useful.  If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or
>>> Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag
>>> things is the most prominent road.  I care more about what *actually is a
>>> big road*.  Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
>>> Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par
>>> with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
>>> Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through.  Calling it a
>>> trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for
>>> what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest
>>> route through the east Cascades frontier.  Primary is definitely ample for
>>> that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem
>>> to Reno.
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag 
importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary. 
Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always 
been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to use it 
more like motorway but for divided highways and people who want it to mean more 
primary than primary.

That's why we're still taking about it now, long after the usage of other 
highway tag values has long been settled. The closest thing to a decision that 
was ever made was NE2's unilateral mass edit, some of which has been reverted, 
some of which hasn't. Without consensus that the tagging is wrong and not just 
the unilateral decision, I'm not going to go out of my way to revert his trunk 
changes on ways I'm not otherwise editing large portions of. It's not a nice 
thing to do. It's got nothing to do with thinking that things should be that 
way and everything to do with not being a jackass who unilaterally imposes 
their will on the whole community.

-Nathan

On October 15, 2017 1:40:16 AM EDT, Bradley White  
wrote:
>If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag
>fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground,
>why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag
>altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms?
>
>>On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson ursamundi.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways.  Are we
>trying to
>>> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
>>> connected?  If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend
>Parkway and
>>> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97.  If
>we're
>>> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
>>> everything into trunk.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Keep hitting send too soon.  Personally, I find what's on the ground
>to be
>>more useful than the connections.  Game theory and any routing engine
>can
>>figure out the connections.  But knowing what's a stupid rural road
>with an
>>overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway
>is
>>more useful.  If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada
>or
>>Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some
>toolbag
>>things is the most prominent road.  I care more about what *actually
>is a
>>big road*.  Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
>>Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on
>par
>>with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
>>Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through.  Calling it
>a
>>trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation
>for
>>what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National
>Forest
>>route through the east Cascades frontier.  Primary is definitely ample
>for
>>that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like
>Salem
>>to Reno.
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

Yes, on more than one occasion back in the mists of time before armchair 
mappers had spread the lanes and other condition tags widely I found some 
pretty shitty US highways labeled as trunk, not because they are better roads, 
but because they happen to be long distance through routes. US412 should not be 
trunk across most of the state of Arkansas. It's mostly a crappy winding route 
that is actively dangerous for trucks, who should be taking I-49 to I-40 or 
US71 north to 44 unless their destination is directly along the route.

By the network definition, it solidly deserves trunk, but by any other measure 
it does not, and calling it so drives traffic to places it shouldn't be and 
makes the map harder to use effectively at a glance.

Yesterday(ish) someone asked which maps differentiate expressway vs freeway vs 
everything else that is paved in their inking styles. I'll answer that with a 
question. Have you ever seen a US paper map? Until the digital road atlases 
with topo shading and/or overlays started becoming common in the late 90s 
basically every official state highway map, chamber of commerce map, gas 
station map, and road atlas differentiated divided, limited access, undivided 
paved, and unpaved with styles and paved/unpaved with weight. Sometimes you'd 
get numbered highways in red and other roads in black (with light grey or 
dashed lines to mean unpaved, depending on the map)

It's long been how US road maps are drawn, so map users here expect that 
differentiation to exist. Of course, we also expect toll roads to be colored 
green, but OSM doesn't do that either. (And I'm fine with that, TBH. I don't 
consider it as important as being able to differentiate between divided and 
undivided in a relatively simple way.)

If someone could explain why primary is insufficient to denote a paved rural 
road that connects minor population centers far from other routes. Why should 
US-71 south of Witcherville in Arkansas not be tagged as primary once the 
divided segment ends? There aren't many US highways of that size with more 
traffic, but it seems solidly primary to me. Some might make the whole thing a 
trunk since the route goes through several states and is important enough to be 
being replaced as money becomes available with I-49. Never mind the four plus 
hours of driving through little towns on a windy mountain road involved. I'd 
have gotten in an edit war over it if someone had tried to tag the part north 
of I-40 a trunk before the freeway was built to Fayetteville and beyond.

-Nathan

On October 15, 2017 1:27:42 AM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>>
>> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways.  Are we trying
>to
>> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
>> connected?  If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend
>Parkway and
>> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97.  If
>we're
>> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
>> everything into trunk.
>>
>
>
>Keep hitting send too soon.  Personally, I find what's on the ground to
>be
>more useful than the connections.  Game theory and any routing engine
>can
>figure out the connections.  But knowing what's a stupid rural road
>with an
>overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway
>is
>more useful.  If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada
>or
>Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some
>toolbag
>things is the most prominent road.  I care more about what *actually is
>a
>big road*.  Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
>Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on
>par
>with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
>Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through.  Calling it
>a
>trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation
>for
>what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest
>route through the east Cascades frontier.  Primary is definitely ample
>for
>that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like
>Salem
>to Reno.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Richard Fairhurst]

Bradley White wrote:
> The UK/Canada system and the central Europe system both adopt 
> the tag in a way that makes sense for the road network they 
> have. We are trying to shoehorn the central European tagging 
> system into our country when, to me, it makes more sense to
> use the UK/Canada system.

Just for information, if you wanted to adopt the UK system in the US, you
could do that absolutely trivially by defining highway=trunk as those
(non-motorway) roads within your National Highway System. That's pretty much
analogous to how it's used here in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States)

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/USA-f5284732.html

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:40:16 -0700
Bradley White  wrote:

> If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag
> fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground,
> why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag
> altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms?

Because we can't.

WA-290 at Starr Road is two paved lanes wide, with 12-foot lanes and
4-foot paved shoulders.  It has a speed limit of 45 mph.

WA-261 at Lyons Ferry Fish Hatchery is two paved lanes wide, with
11-foot lanes and 4-foot paved shoulders.  It has a speed limit of 50
mph.

Two very similar-looking roads, so they should have similar
classifications, right?  WA-261 runs from nowhere much to nowhere
much, and sees maybe 300 vehicles a day.  In contrast, WA-290 is the
other major route between the Spokane and Coeur d'Alene metropolitan
areas (the main route is the interstate), and sees 13,000 vehicles a
day go by.  If you omitted WA-261 from a map, almost nobody would
notice.  If you omitted WA-290, people would discard your map as
useless.

I've driven both roads, and they *feel* very different.  But it's not a
difference that I can put into numbers -- at least, not without putting
a traffic counter out for a few days.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

Not entirely a bad idea, but runs fundamentally in to the same issue this
thread is about, if not moreso.  FM 2161 would wind up as a more
significant road than OR 22 in such a scenario.  Never mind that OR 22 on
the west side of Salem, OR is a major 50 MPH expressway going directly to
the core of Oregon's capital as an expressway leading west from the
Willamette RIver to OR 99W.  FM 2161 is a 70 MPH road best known for part
of it being US 66 before 1988 when US 66 was retired.  I'd still consider
OR 22 as a trunk.  The old_ref=US 66 portion of ref=FM 2161 would be a
judgement call on primary, even if I'd consider most Texas Farm to Market
routes as unclassified or tertiary; it's extremely strong historical
significiance would be what brings it to as high as secondary or primary in
my mind, despite being literally of the same design and barely less
significant than US 97 for most of it's length.

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Bradley White 
wrote:

> If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag
> fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground,
> why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag
> altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms?
>
> >On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways.  Are we trying to
> >> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
> >> connected?  If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway
> and
> >> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97.  If we're
> >> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
> >> everything into trunk.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Keep hitting send too soon.  Personally, I find what's on the ground to be
> >more useful than the connections.  Game theory and any routing engine can
> >figure out the connections.  But knowing what's a stupid rural road with
> an
> >overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is
> >more useful.  If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or
> >Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag
> >things is the most prominent road.  I care more about what *actually is a
> >big road*.  Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
> >Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par
> >with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
> >Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through.  Calling it a
> >trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for
> >what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest
> >route through the east Cascades frontier.  Primary is definitely ample for
> >that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem
> >to Reno.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag
fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground,
why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag
altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms?

>On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways.  Are we trying to
>> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
>> connected?  If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway and
>> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97.  If we're
>> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
>> everything into trunk.
>>
>
>
>Keep hitting send too soon.  Personally, I find what's on the ground to be
>more useful than the connections.  Game theory and any routing engine can
>figure out the connections.  But knowing what's a stupid rural road with an
>overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is
>more useful.  If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or
>Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag
>things is the most prominent road.  I care more about what *actually is a
>big road*.  Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
>Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par
>with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
>Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through.  Calling it a
>trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for
>what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest
>route through the east Cascades frontier.  Primary is definitely ample for
>that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem
>to Reno.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways.  Are we trying to
> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
> connected?  If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway and
> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97.  If we're
> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
> everything into trunk.
>


Keep hitting send too soon.  Personally, I find what's on the ground to be
more useful than the connections.  Game theory and any routing engine can
figure out the connections.  But knowing what's a stupid rural road with an
overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is
more useful.  If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or
Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag
things is the most prominent road.  I care more about what *actually is a
big road*.  Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par
with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through.  Calling it a
trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for
what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest
route through the east Cascades frontier.  Primary is definitely ample for
that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem
to Reno.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

You clearly haven't driven on US 97. It's a fairly busy road with a good
amount of truck traffic and lots of little towns along it. That was my
experience when I drove it. It goes thru central Oregon, which is arid, but
not totally desolate. There was PLENTY of cars going in the other
direction. We drove it between OR 138 and OR 58, and drove back to Eugene
via OR 58, another road that had LOTS of truck traffic, and IMO is fairly
analogous in terms of traffic to US 2 over Stevens Pass.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:47 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:
>
>> I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary
>> route between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them?
>> These important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary.
>>
>
> Funding, mostly.  I'd consider Bend Parkway a trunk (the dual carriageway
> section between County Road 40 and US Route 20) But even then, the best
> Oregon's ever going to do with the rest of the US 97 route is a 2-lane
> single carriageway.  It's a desert road where you can go a decent amount of
> time without encountering anyone else in either direction, almost a road to
> go to of last resort if you're lost on foot as a last resort (and I realize
> most of the roads that cross it are posted "No bicycles, no pedestrians, no
> water available beyond this point", most of Oregon's open freaking desert
> with no features for dozens to hundreds of kilometers if terrain doesn't
> end the road far sooner).  That's totally a primary where it's not trunk.
>
>
>> In many cases primary routes happen to be divided, but in many cases they
>> aren't. Having a simple distinction between the two by using trunk to mean
>> non-motorway divided (or similar) preserves long-standing practice and
>> generally seems like a good thing to me.
>
>
>  Same here.  Bend Parkway's a solid trunk.  Milwaukie Expressway, too.
> Oklahoma City's Northwest Expressway's either a large primary or a bitty
> trunk; Tulsa's Riverside Parkway is a large primary.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Ian Dees  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> It sounds like this thread isn't really going anywhere. Since email
> threads like this tend to be a terrible way to have intense conversation, I
> would encourage you all to talk in real time on IRC, Slack, or a video chat
> of some sort. Maybe Martijn could set up a Hangout?
>

Maybe someone could set up a poll?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:

> I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route
> between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them? These
> important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary.
>

Funding, mostly.  I'd consider Bend Parkway a trunk (the dual carriageway
section between County Road 40 and US Route 20) But even then, the best
Oregon's ever going to do with the rest of the US 97 route is a 2-lane
single carriageway.  It's a desert road where you can go a decent amount of
time without encountering anyone else in either direction, almost a road to
go to of last resort if you're lost on foot as a last resort (and I realize
most of the roads that cross it are posted "No bicycles, no pedestrians, no
water available beyond this point", most of Oregon's open freaking desert
with no features for dozens to hundreds of kilometers if terrain doesn't
end the road far sooner).  That's totally a primary where it's not trunk.


> In many cases primary routes happen to be divided, but in many cases they
> aren't. Having a simple distinction between the two by using trunk to mean
> non-motorway divided (or similar) preserves long-standing practice and
> generally seems like a good thing to me.


 Same here.  Bend Parkway's a solid trunk.  Milwaukie Expressway, too.
Oklahoma City's Northwest Expressway's either a large primary or a bitty
trunk; Tulsa's Riverside Parkway is a large primary.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Ian Dees]

Hi everyone,

It sounds like this thread isn't really going anywhere. Since email threads
like this tend to be a terrible way to have intense conversation, I would
encourage you all to talk in real time on IRC, Slack, or a video chat of
some sort. Maybe Martijn could set up a Hangout?

-Ian

On Oct 5, 2017 17:33, "Martijn van Exel"  wrote:

> Question for you all:
>
> What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than primaries?
>
> To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
> intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the
> US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built to
> interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm not
> looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.
>
> Martijn
>
> [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/42.5188/-83.3982
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

I think primary ought to be used for major state routes and minor US
routes, secondary for minor state routes, and tertiary for collector
arterials.

On Oct 14, 2017 9:23 PM, "Nathan Mills"  wrote:

> I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route
> between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them? These
> important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary.
>
> In many cases primary routes happen to be divided, but in many cases they
> aren't. Having a simple distinction between the two by using trunk to mean
> non-motorway divided (or similar) preserves long-standing practice and
> generally seems like a good thing to me.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On October 14, 2017 11:18:43 PM EDT, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>>
>> I'm amazed that NE2's definition hasn't been removed after 7 years. It
>> must not have been that controversial or else someone would have removed
>> it. Seems like you just don't agree with his opinion and just really have
>> some personal problems with that guy. I know he engaged in some really dumb
>> stuff like unilaterally changing all the US highways to trunk and he
>> ultimately got banned for a turn restriction dispute with you over a parclo
>> interchange in Florida, but he's not the only one who believes that many US
>> highways are deserving of trunk status given the amount of traffic they
>> receive and their importance in a region's highway network.
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Paul Johnson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild 
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:



 On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild 
 wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
>> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what
>> might
>> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
>> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
>> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
>> think a "trunk" is.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a
>> consensus for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much
>> and said "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or 
>> buts."
>> I support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second 
>> most
>> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason 
>> to
>> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
>> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line 
>> is.
>>
>
> I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access,
> like, say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The
> single carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in
> Kansas or US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.
>
>
> You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon
> that passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro
> population of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a 
> trunk
> road?
>

 Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US 20
 and County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic two
 lane, shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane Texas
 FM or RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American west.
 Primary is more than ample for such a road.


 That's not accurate to compare a US highway to some podunk FM/RM road
 out in the middle of nowhere in Texas. US 97 has way more traffic and very
 deserving of its trunk road designation. Most US highways are, except in
 places where they parallel an interstate or other freeway. BTW, this is
 what is written on the wiki.

>>>
>>>  Which was updated by NE2 to skew towards his view of the situation.
>>> Any edits by him have negative value at this point.  Disconnect his reality
>>> from actual reality.
>>>
>>
>>
> --
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route 
between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them? These 
important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary.

In many cases primary routes happen to be divided, but in many cases they 
aren't. Having a simple distinction between the two by using trunk to mean 
non-motorway divided (or similar) preserves long-standing practice and 
generally seems like a good thing to me.

-Nathan

On October 14, 2017 11:18:43 PM EDT, Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>I'm amazed that NE2's definition hasn't been removed after 7 years. It
>must
>not have been that controversial or else someone would have removed it.
>Seems like you just don't agree with his opinion and just really have
>some
>personal problems with that guy. I know he engaged in some really dumb
>stuff like unilaterally changing all the US highways to trunk and he
>ultimately got banned for a turn restriction dispute with you over a
>parclo
>interchange in Florida, but he's not the only one who believes that
>many US
>highways are deserving of trunk status given the amount of traffic they
>receive and their importance in a region's highway network.
>
>On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild
>
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson" 
>wrote:



 On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild
>
 wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker"
>
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not
>forward
> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what
>might
> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on
>what
> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and
>don't
> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the
>world
> think a "trunk" is.
>
>
> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a
> consensus for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels
>so much
> and said "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands,
>or buts."
> I support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the
>second most
> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling
>reason to
> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can
>still
> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick
>the line is.
>

 I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled
>access,
 like, say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.
> The
 single carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US
>400 in
 Kansas or US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.


 You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon
>that
 passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro
>population
 of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk
>road?

>>>
>>> Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US
>20
>>> and County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic
>two
>>> lane, shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane
>Texas
>>> FM or RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American
>west.
>>> Primary is more than ample for such a road.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's not accurate to compare a US highway to some podunk FM/RM
>road out
>>> in the middle of nowhere in Texas. US 97 has way more traffic and
>very
>>> deserving of its trunk road designation. Most US highways are,
>except in
>>> places where they parallel an interstate or other freeway. BTW, this
>is
>>> what is written on the wiki.
>>>
>>
>>  Which was updated by NE2 to skew towards his view of the situation. 
>Any
>> edits by him have negative value at this point.  Disconnect his
>reality
>> from actual reality.
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Evin Fairchild 
wrote:

> That can be easily rectified by tagging trunk roads in accordance with the
> wiki.
>

Exactly backwards, since the wiki is supposed to document how things are
already consumed, not the other way around.  Which wasn't the other way
around since 2010 when NE2 gamed both the wiki and the map for himself.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

That can be easily rectified by tagging trunk roads in accordance with the
wiki. They should be the most important non-motorway roads. Tagging most US
highways as such fulfills this.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>>
>> Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s.  I really
>> think people are trying to overthink this a bit; being a little less
>> subjective isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>>
>> No, just no. I don't like looking at the US at a low zoom and seeing
>> disjointed bits of trunk that aren't connected to anything. Makes the US
>> map look bad.
>>
>
> That's a osm-carto problem, not a tagging problem.  Let's work out the
> tagging situation first, then we can worry about carto.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

I'm amazed that NE2's definition hasn't been removed after 7 years. It must
not have been that controversial or else someone would have removed it.
Seems like you just don't agree with his opinion and just really have some
personal problems with that guy. I know he engaged in some really dumb
stuff like unilaterally changing all the US highways to trunk and he
ultimately got banned for a turn restriction dispute with you over a parclo
interchange in Florida, but he's not the only one who believes that many US
highways are deserving of trunk status given the amount of traffic they
receive and their importance in a region's highway network.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
 wrote:

 Hi,

 it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
 at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
 be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
 it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
 worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
 think a "trunk" is.


 Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a
 consensus for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much
 and said "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts."
 I support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
 important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
 believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
 tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line 
 is.

>>>
>>> I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access,
>>> like, say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The
>>> single carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in
>>> Kansas or US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.
>>>
>>>
>>> You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon that
>>> passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro population
>>> of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk road?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US 20
>> and County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic two
>> lane, shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane Texas
>> FM or RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American west.
>> Primary is more than ample for such a road.
>>
>>
>> That's not accurate to compare a US highway to some podunk FM/RM road out
>> in the middle of nowhere in Texas. US 97 has way more traffic and very
>> deserving of its trunk road designation. Most US highways are, except in
>> places where they parallel an interstate or other freeway. BTW, this is
>> what is written on the wiki.
>>
>
>  Which was updated by NE2 to skew towards his view of the situation.  Any
> edits by him have negative value at this point.  Disconnect his reality
> from actual reality.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
> Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s.  I really
> think people are trying to overthink this a bit; being a little less
> subjective isn't necessarily a bad thing.
>
>
> No, just no. I don't like looking at the US at a low zoom and seeing
> disjointed bits of trunk that aren't connected to anything. Makes the US
> map look bad.
>

That's a osm-carto problem, not a tagging problem.  Let's work out the
tagging situation first, then we can worry about carto.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
>>> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
>>> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
>>> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
>>> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
>>> think a "trunk" is.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a
>>> consensus for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much
>>> and said "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts."
>>> I support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
>>> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
>>> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
>>> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.
>>>
>>
>> I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access,
>> like, say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The
>> single carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in
>> Kansas or US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.
>>
>>
>> You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon that
>> passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro population
>> of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk road?
>>
>
> Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US 20 and
> County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic two lane,
> shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane Texas FM or
> RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American west.
> Primary is more than ample for such a road.
>
>
> That's not accurate to compare a US highway to some podunk FM/RM road out
> in the middle of nowhere in Texas. US 97 has way more traffic and very
> deserving of its trunk road designation. Most US highways are, except in
> places where they parallel an interstate or other freeway. BTW, this is
> what is written on the wiki.
>

 Which was updated by NE2 to skew towards his view of the situation.  Any
edits by him have negative value at this point.  Disconnect his reality
from actual reality.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:



On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
>> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
>> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
>> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
>> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
>> think a "trunk" is.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a consensus
>> for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much and said
>> "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts." I
>> support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
>> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
>> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
>> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.
>>
>
> I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access, like,
> say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The single
> carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in Kansas or
> US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.
>
>
> You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon that
> passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro population
> of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk road?
>

Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US 20 and
County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic two lane,
shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane Texas FM or
RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American west.
Primary is more than ample for such a road.


That's not accurate to compare a US highway to some podunk FM/RM road out
in the middle of nowhere in Texas. US 97 has way more traffic and very
deserving of its trunk road designation. Most US highways are, except in
places where they parallel an interstate or other freeway. BTW, this is
what is written on the wiki.



>
>
>> The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
>> the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
>> for fast traffic.
>>
>>
>> I like this definition. There are quite a few two lane roads that are
>> built for speed, but may still have some at grade intersections.
>>
>
> There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited
> access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard
> shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit.
>
>
> Yeah, true. It's probably a more subjective definition. I think we ought
> to set a population of a city that should be connected to other places by
> trunk roads.
>

Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s.  I really
think people are trying to overthink this a bit; being a little less
subjective isn't necessarily a bad thing.


No, just no. I don't like looking at the US at a low zoom and seeing
disjointed bits of trunk that aren't connected to anything. Makes the US
map look bad.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:

>
>
> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
>> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
>> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
>> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
>> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
>> think a "trunk" is.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a consensus
>> for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much and said
>> "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts." I
>> support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
>> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
>> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
>> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.
>>
>
> I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access, like,
> say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The single
> carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in Kansas or
> US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.
>
>
> You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon that
> passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro population
> of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk road?
>

Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US 20 and
County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic two lane,
shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane Texas FM or
RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American west.
Primary is more than ample for such a road.


>
>
>> The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
>> the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
>> for fast traffic.
>>
>>
>> I like this definition. There are quite a few two lane roads that are
>> built for speed, but may still have some at grade intersections.
>>
>
> There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited
> access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard
> shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit.
>
>
> Yeah, true. It's probably a more subjective definition. I think we ought
> to set a population of a city that should be connected to other places by
> trunk roads.
>

Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s.  I really
think people are trying to overthink this a bit; being a little less
subjective isn't necessarily a bad thing.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"  wrote:



On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
> think a "trunk" is.
>
>
> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a consensus
> for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much and said
> "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts." I
> support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.
>

I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access, like,
say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The single
carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in Kansas or
US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.


You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon that
passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro population
of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk road?



> The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
> the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
> for fast traffic.
>
>
> I like this definition. There are quite a few two lane roads that are
> built for speed, but may still have some at grade intersections.
>

There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited
access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard
shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit.


Yeah, true. It's probably a more subjective definition. I think we ought to
set a population of a city that should be connected to other places by
trunk roads.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited
> access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard
> shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit.
>


To expand on this, it's pretty safe to say there's a big difference between
the 55 mph OR 22 between OR 223 Spur and OR 99E Business, and the 70 mph
Texas Farm-to-Market 2161 between I 40 and US 60.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
> think a "trunk" is.
>
>
> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a consensus
> for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much and said
> "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts." I
> support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.
>

I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access, like,
say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The single
carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in Kansas or
US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.


> The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
> the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
> for fast traffic.
>
>
> I like this definition. There are quite a few two lane roads that are
> built for speed, but may still have some at grade intersections.
>

There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited
access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard
shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" 
wrote:

Hi,

it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
think a "trunk" is.


Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a consensus
for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much and said
"trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts." I
support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.


The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
for fast traffic.

Wolfgang

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


I like this definition. There are quite a few two lane roads that are built
for speed, but may still have some at grade intersections.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Wolfgang Zenker]

Hi,

it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
think a "trunk" is.

The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
for fast traffic.

Wolfgang

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

The linked example is an OSM screenshot? So yes, especially if it is
strictly adhering to trunk==expressway, then they will be explicitly
marked. This is circular. USGS maps emphasize roads when they are
multi-lane highways that aren't freeways, not when they are
expressways. Not every multi-lane highway is an expressway, and not
every multi-lane highway is a trunk road.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Bradley White 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:
>> > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway
>> > and
>> > has had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd
>> > be
>> > tagging as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown
>> > differently.
>>
>> Could you show me an example of a US road atlas that explicitly
>> demarcates expressways? I have legitimately tried to find one but have
>> not been able to. Most US maps I've seen show freeways & toll roads
>> explicitly, but not expressways. Some maps might use a different
>> casing style to denote a divided highway, but the underlying color of
>> the line still represents the importance of the road. Which is the
>> point I'm trying to get at, that a highway being divided or not is
>> orthogonal to its importance.
>
>
> Just googling for it, I do find
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Portland_map.png which
> has 99E where McLoughlin Boulevard is an expressway, and the Milwaukie
> Expressway, in green.  USGS's topo maps of Portland also show the Milwaukie
> Expressway as an expressway, though also shows Interstate 205 as an
> expressway instead of a freeway (which I think we'd all agree would be
> incorrect).  USGS also shows (albeit very outdated at this point) US 412 as
> being an expressway, different from a freeway, east of where the (then still
> unbuilt) Creek Turnpike now joins the Rogers Turnpike.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Bradley White 
wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:
> > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway
> and
> > has had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd
> be
> > tagging as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown
> differently.
>
> Could you show me an example of a US road atlas that explicitly
> demarcates expressways? I have legitimately tried to find one but have
> not been able to. Most US maps I've seen show freeways & toll roads
> explicitly, but not expressways. Some maps might use a different
> casing style to denote a divided highway, but the underlying color of
> the line still represents the importance of the road. Which is the
> point I'm trying to get at, that a highway being divided or not is
> orthogonal to its importance.
>

Just googling for it, I do find
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Portland_map.png which
has 99E where McLoughlin Boulevard is an expressway, and the Milwaukie
Expressway, in green.  USGS's topo maps of Portland also show the Milwaukie
Expressway as an expressway, though also shows Interstate 205 as an
expressway instead of a freeway (which I think we'd all agree would be
incorrect).  USGS also shows (albeit very outdated at this point) US 412 as
being an expressway, different from a freeway, east of where the (then
still unbuilt) Creek Turnpike now joins the Rogers Turnpike.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

As I said previously, and I think it bears repeating, it's very easy to
tell if a trunk is divided or undivided when you look at US or Canada at
zoom 5 on the standard layer. Divided trunks show up as a thicker line than
undivided trunks.

Also worth noting that Google maps doesn't display divided highways any
different than undivided highways. They all are colored yellow.

-Evin (compdude)

On Oct 14, 2017 1:20 PM, "Bradley White"  wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:
> > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway
> and
> > has had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd
> be
> > tagging as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown
> differently.
>
> Could you show me an example of a US road atlas that explicitly
> demarcates expressways? I have legitimately tried to find one but have
> not been able to. Most US maps I've seen show freeways & toll roads
> explicitly, but not expressways. Some maps might use a different
> casing style to denote a divided highway, but the underlying color of
> the line still represents the importance of the road. Which is the
> point I'm trying to get at, that a highway being divided or not is
> orthogonal to its importance.
>
> > It's less work on so many levels also. Creating a new tag requires
> > significant work on the render side, but doesn't really gain us much over
> > just using primary for roads that some think are important enough to be a
> > trunk but are undivided. The wiki definition for primary is already "the
> > most important non-motorway route between two cities" (essentially, and
> > ignoring the variation in use between rural and urban areas)
>
> This is incorrect. 'Tag:highway=primary' gives "A highway linking
> large towns". 'Tag:highway=trunk' gives "Important roads that are not
> motorways", and explicitly lists in the US tagging application that "a
> major intercity highway" is a correct use of the trunk tag in the US.
> 'Highway:international_equivalence' as well as 'Key:highway' give the
> same set of definitions. Where are you seeing that primary is "the
> most important non-motorway route between two cities"?
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:
> Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway and
> has had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd be
> tagging as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown differently.

Could you show me an example of a US road atlas that explicitly
demarcates expressways? I have legitimately tried to find one but have
not been able to. Most US maps I've seen show freeways & toll roads
explicitly, but not expressways. Some maps might use a different
casing style to denote a divided highway, but the underlying color of
the line still represents the importance of the road. Which is the
point I'm trying to get at, that a highway being divided or not is
orthogonal to its importance.

> It's less work on so many levels also. Creating a new tag requires
> significant work on the render side, but doesn't really gain us much over
> just using primary for roads that some think are important enough to be a
> trunk but are undivided. The wiki definition for primary is already "the
> most important non-motorway route between two cities" (essentially, and
> ignoring the variation in use between rural and urban areas)

This is incorrect. 'Tag:highway=primary' gives "A highway linking
large towns". 'Tag:highway=trunk' gives "Important roads that are not
motorways", and explicitly lists in the US tagging application that "a
major intercity highway" is a correct use of the trunk tag in the US.
'Highway:international_equivalence' as well as 'Key:highway' give the
same set of definitions. Where are you seeing that primary is "the
most important non-motorway route between two cities"?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

I think I've said this before, but I'm mostly in agreement with Paul's 
position. Trunk should apply to divided, limited but not controlled access 
highways. Other uses should be exceptions in the same vein as rural interstates 
with a few at-grade intersections keeping their motorway status.

Expressways may often not be of more than local importance, though they often 
are. US 412 in Arkansas is an example which should be part trunk part primary, 
IMO. Even when they are of only local importance, they should still get the 
trunk tag, same as a short motorway still being a motorway despite being 
completely irrelevant to the overall national road network.

Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway and has 
had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd be tagging 
as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown differently. We have the 
tag, it already renders more like motorway in a similar style to other maps, so 
it makes sense to me to work like other maps since it's what end users expect. 
Given that the tag is already there and is fit for purpose. Unless someone can 
show me a situation in which critical information can't be conveyed if an 
important, but undivided, road is tagged primary rather than trunk (Assuming 
the undivided section is not a short interruption in an otherwise continuous 
expressway) I just don't see the benefit of using it to mean "more important 
than primary" rather than "divided but not fully access controlled"

In short, both maps and common use in the US have historically had three main 
classes of paved road. Freeways/motorways, expressways/trunks, and everything 
else. The visual difference between the lower class roads was either based on 
network importance or whether it is a US or state highway, but the higher class 
(faster) roads have long been classified apart from everything else in a way 
that maps very well to motorway/trunk as it has generally used by most US 
mappers aside from NE2 thus far.

It's less work on so many levels also. Creating a new tag requires significant 
work on the render side, but doesn't really gain us much over just using 
primary for roads that some think are important enough to be a trunk but are 
undivided. The wiki definition for primary is already "the most important 
non-motorway route between two cities" (essentially, and ignoring the variation 
in use between rural and urban areas) I don't think any backend work is worth 
the insignificant increase in expressiveness of the map we'd get from using 
trunk as a better primary and introducing a separate tag to denote an 
expressway.

As far as Alaska goes, it's different enough I don't think it's at all 
unreasonable to adjust the rules a bit there, just like there is already some 
variation between states and countries on how to differentiate between 
primary/secondary/etc.

If the issue is the low zoom rendering of short trunk and motorway segments, 
that's a misfeature in carto, not a tagging issue. And not even so hard to fix 
now that route relations are so prevalent.

-Nathan


On October 14, 2017 1:23:39 PM EDT, Bradley White  
wrote:
>> The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known
>concepts;
>> it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts.
>
>I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back
>this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average
>citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not
>freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an
>expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara
>area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single
>person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word
>'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name.
>You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand
>and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in
>explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate
>an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly
>signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with
>expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification
>depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway
>budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is
>suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative.
>
>Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area
>that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged
>secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to
>get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality
>roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point
>to many examples of urban roads that likely meet an expressway
>definition in my current home city of Reno, including one under

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

Still don't agree about osmand making trunks look like a divided highway/
expressway but whatever. Either way, if we tag only divided highways as
trunk just because a certain renderer makes trunk roads look like divided
highways (BTW, this is a better term to use here than expressway because it
causes less confusion), that actually is a textbook example of tagging for
the renderer.

-Evin (compdude)

On Oct 14, 2017 10:57 AM, "Bradley White"  wrote:

> I use Osmand frequently; the point of the cased-line style of the
> trunk & motorway tags is, agreeing with Paul here, to show some degree
> of access control. This is in-line with many paper road atlases,
> especially older ones. My point was that third-party applications
> choosing to use this style is their own pejorative, and we should not
> be basing tagging definitions on how third-party apps use the data. In
> regard to the trunk debate, I understand and fully respect Paul's
> position, but I personally disagree. I'm hoping the debate here will
> encourage the US OSM community in getting closer to an agreeable
> definition for trunk.
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
> > To add onto what Bradley was saying about third-party applications, I
> just
> > want to add that I've done some fact-checking about a claim that Paul
> made
> > in a previous email about how Osmand renders trunks under the assumption
> > that they are expressways (to be clear, by this I mean divided highways
> w/
> > at-grade intersections). After some fact-checking, this claim receives a
> > truth rating of completely FALSE.
> >
> > Anyway, I looked at how Osmand renders motorways versus trunk and I don't
> > know how it is that you, Paul, can say that trunk is assumed to be like
> an
> > expressway  in Osmand's render. That is simply not true. The motorway in
> > Osmand, for those who are unfamiliar, is red with a thin blue outline
> around
> > it, whereas trunk is just an orange-red line without any other color
> > outlining it. This makes it look more like a single-carriageway road and
> > less like an expressway like Paul falsely claims. All it looks like is a
> > road that is of higher-importance than primary, and does NOT at all look
> > like it could be an expressway. Usually, when maps show a divided
> highway w/
> > at-grade intersections, it looks similar to a freeway, but a different
> > color, whereas an undivided two-lane road typically looks nothing like an
> > expressway or freeway. Thus, it is complete and utter lie to say that
> Osmand
> > makes the assumption that trunk roads are expressways. I don't know how
> > mkgmap shows trunk vs. motorway since I don't have a Garmin and thus
> cannot
> > test it out, but I don't trust that Paul is telling the truth here
> either.
> >
> > It's important to make truthful claims here, Paul; from now on, I will
> have
> > a VERY difficult time trusting anything you say. I know what I brought up
> > was kind of a side point, but I think it's important to call out BS when
> I
> > see it.
> >
> > -Evin (compdude)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Bradley White <
> theangrytom...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known
> >> > concepts;
> >> > it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts.
> >>
> >> I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back
> >> this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average
> >> citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not
> >> freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an
> >> expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara
> >> area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single
> >> person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word
> >> 'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name.
> >> You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand
> >> and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in
> >> explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate
> >> an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly
> >> signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with
> >> expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification
> >> depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway
> >> budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is
> >> suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative.
> >>
> >> Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area
> >> that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged
> >> secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to
> >> get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality
> >> roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point
> >> 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

I use Osmand frequently; the point of the cased-line style of the
trunk & motorway tags is, agreeing with Paul here, to show some degree
of access control. This is in-line with many paper road atlases,
especially older ones. My point was that third-party applications
choosing to use this style is their own pejorative, and we should not
be basing tagging definitions on how third-party apps use the data. In
regard to the trunk debate, I understand and fully respect Paul's
position, but I personally disagree. I'm hoping the debate here will
encourage the US OSM community in getting closer to an agreeable
definition for trunk.

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:
> To add onto what Bradley was saying about third-party applications, I just
> want to add that I've done some fact-checking about a claim that Paul made
> in a previous email about how Osmand renders trunks under the assumption
> that they are expressways (to be clear, by this I mean divided highways w/
> at-grade intersections). After some fact-checking, this claim receives a
> truth rating of completely FALSE.
>
> Anyway, I looked at how Osmand renders motorways versus trunk and I don't
> know how it is that you, Paul, can say that trunk is assumed to be like an
> expressway  in Osmand's render. That is simply not true. The motorway in
> Osmand, for those who are unfamiliar, is red with a thin blue outline around
> it, whereas trunk is just an orange-red line without any other color
> outlining it. This makes it look more like a single-carriageway road and
> less like an expressway like Paul falsely claims. All it looks like is a
> road that is of higher-importance than primary, and does NOT at all look
> like it could be an expressway. Usually, when maps show a divided highway w/
> at-grade intersections, it looks similar to a freeway, but a different
> color, whereas an undivided two-lane road typically looks nothing like an
> expressway or freeway. Thus, it is complete and utter lie to say that Osmand
> makes the assumption that trunk roads are expressways. I don't know how
> mkgmap shows trunk vs. motorway since I don't have a Garmin and thus cannot
> test it out, but I don't trust that Paul is telling the truth here either.
>
> It's important to make truthful claims here, Paul; from now on, I will have
> a VERY difficult time trusting anything you say. I know what I brought up
> was kind of a side point, but I think it's important to call out BS when I
> see it.
>
> -Evin (compdude)
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Bradley White 
> wrote:
>>
>> > The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known
>> > concepts;
>> > it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts.
>>
>> I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back
>> this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average
>> citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not
>> freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an
>> expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara
>> area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single
>> person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word
>> 'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name.
>> You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand
>> and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in
>> explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate
>> an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly
>> signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with
>> expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification
>> depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway
>> budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is
>> suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative.
>>
>> Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area
>> that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged
>> secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to
>> get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality
>> roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point
>> to many examples of urban roads that likely meet an expressway
>> definition in my current home city of Reno, including one under
>> construction. It would be absurd to me to tag them as being second in
>> importance only to motorways just because they are well-built roads,
>> because they're unimportant outside of getting around the relatively
>> small Reno-Sparks metropolitan area.
>>
>> The "highway" key is about importance. The only category we have
>> full-stop made equivalent with a type of road design is "motorway".
>> From trunk on down, it is just different grades of importance. These
>> are how the definitions are listed on the 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

To add onto what Bradley was saying about third-party applications, I just
want to add that I've done some fact-checking about a claim that Paul made
in a previous email about how Osmand renders trunks under the assumption
that they are expressways (to be clear, by this I mean divided highways w/
at-grade intersections). After some fact-checking, this claim receives a
truth rating of *completely FALSE*.

Anyway, I looked at how Osmand renders motorways versus trunk and I don't
know how it is that you, Paul, can say that trunk is assumed to be like an
expressway  in Osmand's render. That is simply not true. The motorway in
Osmand, for those who are unfamiliar, is red with a thin blue outline
around it, whereas trunk is just an orange-red line without any other color
outlining it. This makes it look more like a single-carriageway road and
less like an expressway like Paul falsely claims. All it looks like is a
road that is of higher-importance than primary, and does NOT at all look
like it could be an expressway. Usually, when maps show a divided highway
w/ at-grade intersections, it looks similar to a freeway, but a different
color, whereas an undivided two-lane road typically looks nothing like an
expressway or freeway. Thus, it is complete and utter lie to say that
Osmand makes the assumption that trunk roads are expressways. I don't know
how mkgmap shows trunk vs. motorway since I don't have a Garmin and thus
cannot test it out, but I don't trust that Paul is telling the truth here
either.

It's important to make truthful claims here, Paul; from now on, I will have
a VERY difficult time trusting anything you say. I know what I brought up
was kind of a side point, but I think it's important to call out BS when I
see it.

-Evin (compdude)


On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Bradley White 
wrote:

> > The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known concepts;
> > it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts.
>
> I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back
> this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average
> citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not
> freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an
> expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara
> area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single
> person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word
> 'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name.
> You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand
> and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in
> explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate
> an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly
> signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with
> expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification
> depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway
> budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is
> suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative.
>
> Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area
> that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged
> secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to
> get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality
> roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point
> to many examples of urban roads that likely meet an expressway
> definition in my current home city of Reno, including one under
> construction. It would be absurd to me to tag them as being second in
> importance only to motorways just because they are well-built roads,
> because they're unimportant outside of getting around the relatively
> small Reno-Sparks metropolitan area.
>
> The "highway" key is about importance. The only category we have
> full-stop made equivalent with a type of road design is "motorway".
> From trunk on down, it is just different grades of importance. These
> are how the definitions are listed on the 'Key:highway' page, which I
> consider to be definitive. The fact that the words "trunk", "primary",
> "secondary", ... are used is an artifact of the UK roots of OSM. Had
> this project started in the US, the keys would probably be "freeway",
> "principal_artery", "major_artery", "minor_artery", "major_collector",
> ... leaving UK users scratching their heads trying to figure out how
> to adapt these definitions to their own network. In countries with
> signposted expressway systems, it is meaningful in understanding the
> road network to equate trunk with expressway, so they do that. I don't
> think doing the same is meaningful in the U.S. given how much
> variability and inconsistency there is with how and where expressways
> are constructed.
>
> > Even a lot of renderers make this same assumption:  mkgmap 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

> The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known concepts;
> it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts.

I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back
this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average
citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not
freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an
expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara
area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single
person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word
'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name.
You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand
and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in
explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate
an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly
signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with
expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification
depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway
budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is
suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative.

Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area
that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged
secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to
get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality
roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point
to many examples of urban roads that likely meet an expressway
definition in my current home city of Reno, including one under
construction. It would be absurd to me to tag them as being second in
importance only to motorways just because they are well-built roads,
because they're unimportant outside of getting around the relatively
small Reno-Sparks metropolitan area.

The "highway" key is about importance. The only category we have
full-stop made equivalent with a type of road design is "motorway".
From trunk on down, it is just different grades of importance. These
are how the definitions are listed on the 'Key:highway' page, which I
consider to be definitive. The fact that the words "trunk", "primary",
"secondary", ... are used is an artifact of the UK roots of OSM. Had
this project started in the US, the keys would probably be "freeway",
"principal_artery", "major_artery", "minor_artery", "major_collector",
... leaving UK users scratching their heads trying to figure out how
to adapt these definitions to their own network. In countries with
signposted expressway systems, it is meaningful in understanding the
road network to equate trunk with expressway, so they do that. I don't
think doing the same is meaningful in the U.S. given how much
variability and inconsistency there is with how and where expressways
are constructed.

> Even a lot of renderers make this same assumption:  mkgmap maps trunk to
> Garmin's concept of expressway and motorway to freeway.  Osmand, easily the
> most popular data consumer for OpenStreetMap, makes the same assumption (to
> the point that most of it's map painting styles, the only differentiation
> between trunk and motorway is a color pallette shift).  It really wouldn't
> hurt the US community to have a "come to Jesus" moment on this,
> particularly when using the MUTCD definitions for expressway and freeway as
> qualifiers for trunk and freeway, makes this relatively easy.  The
> corollary to "don't tag for the renderer" is "don't break the renderer".
> Highways without access control being excluded from trunk or motorway isn't
> an intrinsically bad assumption to make.  Especially if we come to
> agreement on that, we can start having a productive talk on how to make
> carto not suck for Americans without breaking it for everyone else.

I'm really not that concerned with how third-party applications decide
to paint their roads. It's up to them to work with the data we
provide, not the other way around. If it is important to Garmin or
other applications to translate expressways, this can usually be
deduced from other tags, or we can trivially add an "expressway=" tag.
I also disagree that the carto in the US is bad, other than our
insistence that two-lane are categorically not trunk leaving
meaningless splatters of orange around the map at low zoom.

Also, apologies ahead of time if I keep breaking the archive
hierarchy, I'm not totally familiar with how to drive a mailing list
and I have yet to find a guide online that explains how.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

The concept of expressway is not as well known as a freeway. Many people,
especially in places like NYC, might consider expressways and freeways to
be interchangeable terms. Heck, even in Tulsa, you have the Broken Arrow
Expressway, and the Sand Springs Expressway, which, despite being called
expressways, have full access control and no at-grade intersections and no
places where one crosses into oncoming traffic.

Also, as for super-twos, let's not discuss that right now. I'd prefer us to
stick to talking about trunk roads *only*, since that's the topic of this
thread. Let's not go on that tangent, and I'd like to know what you think
about how the standard Mapnik render differentiates between undivided and
divided trunk roads. It's a pretty obvious distinction to me, and you can
*easily* tell the two apart. If anything, I think that that helps us out
here.

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Evin Fairchild 
> wrote:
>
>> Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads
>> as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart
>> from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many of you have
>> noticed if you've looked at Canada at zoom 5, you can see that some of the
>> trunks are thicker than others. If you zoom in more, you'll notice that
>> said thicker roads are divided/ dual carriageway, whereas the thinner ones
>> are undivided roads. Also, the same is true with motorways, so we could
>> theoretically tag super-twos as motorways and still tell them apart from
>> actual Interstate freeways. This has been done extensively in New Brunswick
>> and Nova Scotia, and I quite like it. But we probably shouldn't go down
>> that rabbit hole at this point...
>>
>
> I also disagree with the idea that (at least in the US, though also
> relevant to the rest of North America to a lesser extent) a super-2
> qualifies as a motorway.  I generally consider the minimum requirements for
> motorway as dual carriageway, with each carriageway having a minimum of two
> lanes, barring temporary traffic controls (such as a reduction to one lane
> each way, undivided, very common when a DOT needs to restrict access
> completely to one motorway for routine maintenance or immediately after a
> major disaster; most frequently personally experienced in California,
> Oklahoma and Kansas, and routinely planned for to the extent that permanent
> crossover "X" links are installed regularly in Kansas and Oklahoma).
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Evin Fairchild 
wrote:

> Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads
> as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart
> from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many of you have
> noticed if you've looked at Canada at zoom 5, you can see that some of the
> trunks are thicker than others. If you zoom in more, you'll notice that
> said thicker roads are divided/ dual carriageway, whereas the thinner ones
> are undivided roads. Also, the same is true with motorways, so we could
> theoretically tag super-twos as motorways and still tell them apart from
> actual Interstate freeways. This has been done extensively in New Brunswick
> and Nova Scotia, and I quite like it. But we probably shouldn't go down
> that rabbit hole at this point...
>

I also disagree with the idea that (at least in the US, though also
relevant to the rest of North America to a lesser extent) a super-2
qualifies as a motorway.  I generally consider the minimum requirements for
motorway as dual carriageway, with each carriageway having a minimum of two
lanes, barring temporary traffic controls (such as a reduction to one lane
each way, undivided, very common when a DOT needs to restrict access
completely to one motorway for routine maintenance or immediately after a
major disaster; most frequently personally experienced in California,
Oklahoma and Kansas, and routinely planned for to the extent that permanent
crossover "X" links are installed regularly in Kansas and Oklahoma).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500
> > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> > Message-ID:
> > 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads as
trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart
from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many of you have
noticed if you've looked at Canada at zoom 5, you can see that some of the
trunks are thicker than others. If you zoom in more, you'll notice that
said thicker roads are divided/ dual carriageway, whereas the thinner ones
are undivided roads. Also, the same is true with motorways, so we could
theoretically tag super-twos as motorways and still tell them apart from
actual Interstate freeways. This has been done extensively in New Brunswick
and Nova Scotia, and I quite like it. But we probably shouldn't go down
that rabbit hole at this point...

-Evin (Compdude)

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >Can you explain what your goal/desire is for these non-divided highways
> >to be labeled trunk?  Is it about a small-scale render showing them,
> >when if they are primary, Alaska looks empty when it shouldn't?  Some
> >sense of hierarchical views of road networks?  Something else?
>
> @Bradley - I didn't tag them originally and don't particularly care how
> they're tagged. Routing in rural Alaska is pretty simple because there's
> only one way to get from Anchorage to Fairbanks and to Homer, where I live
> LOL. That's why I prefaced my comment by saying I have no stake in the
> outcome of this conversation. I only want to stay tuned in so I can
> understand any changes to our rationale.
>
> Dave
>
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > Message: 4
>> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500
>> > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
>> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
>> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
>> > Message-ID:
>> > 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

>Can you explain what your goal/desire is for these non-divided highways
>to be labeled trunk?  Is it about a small-scale render showing them,
>when if they are primary, Alaska looks empty when it shouldn't?  Some
>sense of hierarchical views of road networks?  Something else?

@Bradley - I didn't tag them originally and don't particularly care how
they're tagged. Routing in rural Alaska is pretty simple because there's
only one way to get from Anchorage to Fairbanks and to Homer, where I live
LOL. That's why I prefaced my comment by saying I have no stake in the
outcome of this conversation. I only want to stay tuned in so I can
understand any changes to our rationale.

Dave

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Message: 4
> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500
> > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> > Message-ID:
> > 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Message-ID:
> 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>
> Soon after I first joined OSM, NE2 changed a US highway near me from
> primary to trunk which another user quickly reverted, but I actually agreed
> with the change to trunk. The road I'm referring to, BTW, is US 2 in
> Washington. It's mostly just two lanes, (it really could use four lanes,
> particularly between Snohomish and Gold Bar) but it is the second most
> important route over the Cascades in Washington, after I-90. Thus, it ought
> to be a trunk road.
>

The Super2 parts of US 2 were being upgraded to Trunk was valid, but not
the single carriageway, uncontrolled access parts.


> And I still do think that many US highways should be tagged as trunk for
> the most part, except when they parallel a freeway or other road with a
> higher capacity. After all, not every pair of large towns and cities (I'm
> talking anything with a population greater than 25,000 or more) will be
> connected by a freeway or expressway, even if they have traffic counts that
> are close to that of some rural interstates.
>

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Evin Fairchild]

On Oct 13, 2017 7:11 PM, "Bradley White"  wrote:

Lots of words ahead, you have been warned...

I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what
"kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The
"highway" key is for importance, or, how prominently a road should
show on the map. We have other tags to describe completely the
physical attributes of a road. If there existed an "if-then" algorithm
to determine how prominently a road should show on the map only from
physical attributes, we wouldn't need this tag at all.

But we do. The U.S. needs this tag because form often does not follow
function. There are many plain-old two-lane roads that are important
enough for cross-country navigation that they should show at low zoom
along with the interstate system. There are also countless high-speed,
high-access-control (no driveways, limited intersections), multi-lane,
divided arteries that do little more than connect suburbs to more
important roads. These roads do NOT need to show at low zoom, despite
being a high-quality road.

Consider instead that we trade off "highway=motorway" with
"highway=1", "highway=trunk" with "highway=2", etc., which represents
only the importance of a road in the network. In the US, it is fair to
take freeways as an entire class to be the most important roads. A
freeway has strict & verifiable physical criteria (aside from a small
fringe set of exceptions), they are signposted and unambiguous, it is
a term well-understood in common vernacular that the average map
consumer would expect to see shown on a map, and they are nearly
always THE most important roads in the area. It is easy to say both
that "this is a freeway" and that "these are the most important kinds
of roads". In fact, this is the case in nearly all developed countries
on the planet. So, we instead define "highway=1" to just be
"highway=motorway" since it is nearly always the same thing.

In Europe, it would also be fair to use "highway=2" to simply
represent expressways as a class. Expressways (in the countries that
have expressway systems) are built to a verifiable design criteria,
are signposted and unambiguous (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road), are something the
average map consumer in the area is both familiar with and would
expect to see on a map, and are nearly always second in importance to
the motorway system. Again, it is easy to say both that "this is an
expressway" and "this is the second most important kind of roads". So,
in countries that have designated expressway systems, they define
"highway=2" to just be "highway=trunk" since it is nearly always the
same thing.

This situation is NOT the case for the majority of the US, and trying
to use this definition is what has been leading to unresolved
confusion about the purpose of the trunk tag. MUTCD gives a definition
of "divided highway with partial control of access". This is rather
vague, and as stated above, means countless unimportant suburban
arteries would now be considered the second most important roads in
the country. Many states haven't even adopted usage of this term at
all. I have seen planning documents of some counties that have
multiple grades of "expressways" depending on intersection distance,
speed limits, etc. Outside of bona-fide urban expressway systems like
the Santa Clara Expressway system, I think it's a nearly meaningless
term.

I have heard two kinds of attempts to describe what constitutes an
expressway and thus a trunk road in the US. The first attempt is the
"it's like a freeway but only kind of" definition. I don't like this
definition because if we're going to trade off an entire class of
importance with an entire class of road design, we should at least be
perfectly clear about what kinds of roads we are talking about, as we
are with freeways. The second attempt is to establish some kind of
verifiable physical criteria: divided, minimum 45 mph speed limit,
limited intersections, maybe has grade-separated interchanges. There
are also many problems with this approach. As discussed above, it
grades swaths of overbuilt roads as being more important that they
actually are. It makes roads that are crucial for navigation but don't
meet an arbitrary checklist difficult to pick out from the sea of
primary roads that the rural US currently exhibits. Furthermore, it
leads to the current situation of random splotches of deep-orange
lines visible at the same level as the interstate system scattered
across the US, which provides absolutely no meaning to the average
US-based map consumer. Being frank, I can't understand at all why
anyone considers the current state of trunk road tagging in rural
parts of the US desirable or useful or illuminating at all.

I propose defining trunk in the US to mean, formally, "The most
important non-motorway roads in the country". An extended definition
for the US follows below:

--
Trunk roads are the 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Bradley White 
wrote:
>
> This situation is NOT the case for the majority of the US, and trying
> to use this definition is what has been leading to unresolved
> confusion about the purpose of the trunk tag. MUTCD gives a definition
> of "divided highway with partial control of access". This is rather
> vague, and as stated above, means countless unimportant suburban
> arteries would now be considered the second most important roads in
> the country. Many states haven't even adopted usage of this term at
> all. I have seen planning documents of some counties that have
> multiple grades of "expressways" depending on intersection distance,
> speed limits, etc. Outside of bona-fide urban expressway systems like
> the Santa Clara Expressway system, I think it's a nearly meaningless
> term.
>

I would tend to give AASHTO, NACTO and especially USDOT documents to be
authoritative when it comes to defining documents for US transportation,
however, this may be coming from getting into civil engineering in Oregon
where expressways and freeways are using the MUTCD definitions quite
strictly, making the trunk situation more obvious.  Also, hence my
frustration with how WA 500 is being handled in Vancouver; every time
someone updates it to be trunk from I 5 to Fourth Plain, someone updates it
to being a checkerboard of motorway again.  Idiots...


> --
> Trunk roads are the most important non-motorway roads in the country.
> These roads connect major population centers and are crucial to the
> transportation network as a whole, acting as a supplement to the
> interstate system for cross-country travel. They are usually US
> highways, but may be of other designation as well.
>
> In rural areas, these roads often - but not always - are built with
> expressway features (divided carriageway, access control,
> grade-separated interchanges) at some or all portions of the road.
> Often, these roads will circumvent towns along the route, but they may
> also penetrate towns as an important road ("Main Street"s), in which
> case it is to remain trunk.
>
> In urban areas, most expressway systems should be tagged trunk,
> especially if they serve as an important artery through the city not
> already served by a freeway. If a trunk road enters from rural into
> urban, in general it should remain trunk until it connects with a more
> important road (motorway), or passes through the city completely (as
> an exception, cases where the city IS the important destination may
> end the trunk designation at the city). Very minor expressway systems
> that serve small population centers or destinations should NOT be
> tagged as trunk; instead consider using a lower classification of road
> along with "motorroad=".
> --
>

I reject this because it will lead to an overemphasis of relatively smaller
roads.  Including primary at lower zooms might help what you're referring
to as being splotchiness with trunks in rural areas.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Bradley White]

Lots of words ahead, you have been warned...

I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what
"kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The
"highway" key is for importance, or, how prominently a road should
show on the map. We have other tags to describe completely the
physical attributes of a road. If there existed an "if-then" algorithm
to determine how prominently a road should show on the map only from
physical attributes, we wouldn't need this tag at all.

But we do. The U.S. needs this tag because form often does not follow
function. There are many plain-old two-lane roads that are important
enough for cross-country navigation that they should show at low zoom
along with the interstate system. There are also countless high-speed,
high-access-control (no driveways, limited intersections), multi-lane,
divided arteries that do little more than connect suburbs to more
important roads. These roads do NOT need to show at low zoom, despite
being a high-quality road.

Consider instead that we trade off "highway=motorway" with
"highway=1", "highway=trunk" with "highway=2", etc., which represents
only the importance of a road in the network. In the US, it is fair to
take freeways as an entire class to be the most important roads. A
freeway has strict & verifiable physical criteria (aside from a small
fringe set of exceptions), they are signposted and unambiguous, it is
a term well-understood in common vernacular that the average map
consumer would expect to see shown on a map, and they are nearly
always THE most important roads in the area. It is easy to say both
that "this is a freeway" and that "these are the most important kinds
of roads". In fact, this is the case in nearly all developed countries
on the planet. So, we instead define "highway=1" to just be
"highway=motorway" since it is nearly always the same thing.

In Europe, it would also be fair to use "highway=2" to simply
represent expressways as a class. Expressways (in the countries that
have expressway systems) are built to a verifiable design criteria,
are signposted and unambiguous (see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-access_road), are something the
average map consumer in the area is both familiar with and would
expect to see on a map, and are nearly always second in importance to
the motorway system. Again, it is easy to say both that "this is an
expressway" and "this is the second most important kind of roads". So,
in countries that have designated expressway systems, they define
"highway=2" to just be "highway=trunk" since it is nearly always the
same thing.

This situation is NOT the case for the majority of the US, and trying
to use this definition is what has been leading to unresolved
confusion about the purpose of the trunk tag. MUTCD gives a definition
of "divided highway with partial control of access". This is rather
vague, and as stated above, means countless unimportant suburban
arteries would now be considered the second most important roads in
the country. Many states haven't even adopted usage of this term at
all. I have seen planning documents of some counties that have
multiple grades of "expressways" depending on intersection distance,
speed limits, etc. Outside of bona-fide urban expressway systems like
the Santa Clara Expressway system, I think it's a nearly meaningless
term.

I have heard two kinds of attempts to describe what constitutes an
expressway and thus a trunk road in the US. The first attempt is the
"it's like a freeway but only kind of" definition. I don't like this
definition because if we're going to trade off an entire class of
importance with an entire class of road design, we should at least be
perfectly clear about what kinds of roads we are talking about, as we
are with freeways. The second attempt is to establish some kind of
verifiable physical criteria: divided, minimum 45 mph speed limit,
limited intersections, maybe has grade-separated interchanges. There
are also many problems with this approach. As discussed above, it
grades swaths of overbuilt roads as being more important that they
actually are. It makes roads that are crucial for navigation but don't
meet an arbitrary checklist difficult to pick out from the sea of
primary roads that the rural US currently exhibits. Furthermore, it
leads to the current situation of random splotches of deep-orange
lines visible at the same level as the interstate system scattered
across the US, which provides absolutely no meaning to the average
US-based map consumer. Being frank, I can't understand at all why
anyone considers the current state of trunk road tagging in rural
parts of the US desirable or useful or illuminating at all.

I propose defining trunk in the US to mean, formally, "The most
important non-motorway roads in the country". An extended definition
for the US follows below:

--
Trunk roads are the most important non-motorway roads in the country.
These roads connect major 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Doug Peterson]

> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:59:11 -0600
> From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me
> a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this
> thread. I intend to follow up with another diary post where I try to
> collect this smart crowd's thoughts and suggestions, but it will probably
> not until after State of the Map US that I get to this.
> 
> In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real
> case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168
> 
> Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in
> the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related
> driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss
> here or on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52903464 .
> 
> On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific
> rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk 'appendices' like the one I just
> downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky -- you end up with short
> segments that seem to end in nothing.
> 
> Martijn
> 

I'm not arguing the change.  I would point out that the bike lane now masks 
what functioned as basically an entrance / exit lane on the highway.  The 
abutting entrances were not an issue to maintaining highway speed on the road.  
They do not now with the bike lane.  The bike lane is basically treated the 
same way without apparent risk to the bikes as I have never seen one in it.  
That is a comment on what I think of the wisdom of overlaying a bike lane there 
for how the lane has functioned.

Northwestern Highway / M-10 is similar in nature and use to nearby Telegraph 
Road / US-24 which has been tagged as Primary since at least 2009.

Thank you,

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> Agreed mostly.  But I don't see primary/secondary as having anything to
> do with physical; we more or less defined that as US vs state long ago.

If you read the description on the Wiki, we defined no such thing, we
merely said it was an indication: 'primary' is "A major highway
linking large towns, in developed countries normally with 2 lanes. In
areas with worse infrastructure road quality may be far worse." and
then we say "U.S. Highways are *mostly* primary." (emphasis added).
And that's true largely because they were imported that way from
TIGER, for weal or woe.

Examples: US 6 between Port Jervis and Middletown, NY is really no
longer even primary. In that stretch it isn't the major highway
linking those towns. Interstate 84 now serves that role. US 6 is
maintained there chiefly as a detour route in case I-84 has to be
closed for some reason. I'm also not sure that I'd accord it 'primary'
farther east, between Woodbury and Bear Mountain, because it's
'hgv=no' and has a reduced speed limit in the park.

By contrast, NY 17 is a freeway. (It's signed, "Future I-86" in spots.
I'm not sure what's blocking the designation- it is I-86 farther
west.)  NY 5, on the north side of the Mohawk, is correctly labeled a
'trunk' for most of its length. (It slows down and has stoplights in
the larger towns, but is dual-carriageway with only infrequent
at-grade crossings.) NY 30 is surely at least 'primary'. It's a
bad two-lane road in a lot of places, but it goes through remote and
mountainous parts of the state and is The Big Road in virtually every
community it visits.

Ulster County Road 47 is a primary (or secondary at the very
least), two-lane (uhm, usually)
gravel (or sometimes asphalt) road. It was formerly signed
NY 42 - and there are sections of NY 42 beyond both
ends of it. But the state, some years back, decided that a
road through the mountain range there could not be maintained
to state highway standards and turned it over to the county.
The non-hard-surface sections were downgraded because
they're easier and cheaper to maintain, and with the
well-compacted surface, the road runs surprisingly fast in
summer. (In winter, it's pretty challenging - snow removal leaves
something to be desired, and there's a LOT of snow up
in the pass by Winnisook Lake.) But for the villages of Big
Indian, Oliverea, Frost Valley, Claryville, it's The Highway.

Reading the descriptions on the Wiki, they all are talking about
importance, not size. "Secondary" is defined as "A highway which is
not part of a major route, but nevertheless forming a link in the
national route network." "Trunk" is "Use highway=trunk for high
performance or high importance roads that don't meet the requirement
for motorway." This is the only one that's hedged: "In different
countries, either performance or importance is used as the defining
criterion for trunk."

By contrast, if we want to say, "how big a road is this" for
rendering, we have a collection of attributes that can inform it:
"lanes", "maxspeed", "maxweight", "hgv", single vs dual carriageway,
presence or absence of grade crossings, ...

So in an ideal world, it's less of a stretch to say that "highway=*"
is the "importance" metric (which would determine the map scale at
which the road is relevant), and the bucket of physical attributes
that I mentioned is enough to determine "size" for the symbology.  I
don't know if "maxspeed" by itself is enough for routing, or if other
information is needed there; I generally consider routing to be
Someone Else's Problem.

Nevertheless, we live in a real world in which a TIGER import did
indeed tag roads by administrative level - surely a surrogate for
neither size, nor speed, nor importance, and in which people argue
whether a dual-carriageway county road could possibly be anything
higher than 'tertiary', and tag a dual carriageway as "motorway" with
downgrades to "trunk" for barely the width of each grade crossing. I
don't know what to do to get from the world we live in to a world
where the useful attributes for selection, rendering, and routing are
separable.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:
>
> I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this discussion but wish to
> again point out that Alaska is a state where "trunk" has been used to
> designate highways that are ordinarily classified as primary but because
> they are in a state with so few roads and in which they are the "only"
> connectors between towns, have been tagged trunk highways. They are
> high-speed, 65 mph in most cases, or I should say, in most sections, but
> have driveways, intersections, and when passing through towns, lower speed
> limits, traffic signals, etc.
>

I wouldn't call those trunks unless they are also an Interstate, and even
that's a pretty weak argument in favor of calling it a trunk.  It shouldn't
make much of any difference in terms of functionality but does give humans
a better idea of what the road is.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
> > network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
> > is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
> > interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
> > like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
> > driven on (MA, WY) are like that.
>
> You're saying basically the same thing I've been saying. But... people
> who do routing and make maps are asking for three things, and
> we separate them only incompletely.
>
> (1) How "important" is this road to the long distance road network?
> If you look at a small-scale map of the state of Maine, you'll virtually
> always see US 1, 1A 2, 201; Maine 6, 11, 16, 161, 205. Maine
> has only the one Interstate (95) plus a loop (295 from Portland to Augusta)
> and a spur (395 into Bangor).
>
> This is what guides the decision to render a road at a given scale.
>

No argument here; I consider trunks and motorways as a special case of
primary.


> (2) What are the road's physical characteristics (access control,
> grade separation, number of lanes, width of shoulders, presence
> or absence of traffic lights and stop signs)?
>
> This is what guides the symbology to use. While Maine 205 is
> an important road in its area, it is NOT rendered as a freeway,
> or even a trunk. It's at best a primary and may even be a secondary,
> and that's how is should be rendered even on a small scale
> map.
>

I generally consider state highways as secondary unless they're quite large
or hit trunk or motorway.


> (3) How fast does traffic ordinarily flow on the road?
>
> This is what (should) guide the routing decision; routing is
> ordinarily done to save the driver's time. It is of key importance
> to navigation systems, but doesn't ordinarily guide rendering.
>

We don't even need to tag for this, as it can be inferred from the GPX
database instead.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Dave Swarthout]

>I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
>network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
>is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
>interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
>like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
>driven on (MA, WY) are like that.

I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this discussion but wish to
again point out that Alaska is a state where "trunk" has been used to
designate highways that are ordinarily classified as primary but because
they are in a state with so few roads and in which they are the "only"
connectors between towns, have been tagged trunk highways. They are
high-speed, 65 mph in most cases, or I should say, in most sections, but
have driveways, intersections, and when passing through towns, lower speed
limits, traffic signals, etc.

Just an observation on an edge case that is moderately important in our
immense and 99% rural state.

Best,
AlaskaDave

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Martijn van Exel  writes:
>
> > In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a
> real
> > case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange:
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168
> >
> > Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in
> > the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related
> > driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss
> > here or on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52903464 .
>
> If there are enough abutters and driveways (and use of them) that people
> driving on the road cannot basically act as if there are none, then it
> fails as trunk, so from your description, that sounds good.
>
> I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
> network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
> is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
> interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
> like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
> driven on (MA, WY) are like that.
>
> > On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific
> > rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk 'appendices' like the one I
> > just downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky -- you end up
> > with short segments that seem to end in nothing.
>
> On point 2: Because the evolved rough consensus is about trunk being
> something that would have qualified for primary that also has superior
> physical characteristics, there is no reason to expect that displaying
> trunk but not primary will result in a connected network or a coherent
> map.  Displaying motorway but not trunk will likewise not be connected;
> e.g. parts of MA 2 are trunk and part are motorway (and in Boston and
> Western MA, merely primary).  The signed route is continuous and part of
> the network, but if you start at Alewife you are on motorway (4 lanes
> and traffic moves at 80+ mph) and eventually you get to Erving where
> it's 1 lane each way, double yellow line, and posted 30, having dropped
> to trunk and then had another motorway section.  But it is certainly a long
> distance important route, and if you only render 2 EW routes in MA, it's
> the second one to show after I-90.
>
> My point then, is that choosing to render trunk but not primary is not
> really a thing to do what preserves a sense of networks.  We absolutely
> should not thing about how to use motorway/trunk/primary to make maps
> rendered that way look good.
>
> People may want to render based on ref tag, or some other "how important
> is this route" tag, which could be some combination of how long the road
> is and how far away the next road that goes roughly those places but is
> faster is.  Others have talked about dropping some Interstate sections
> (esp odd 3 digits) at small scales.
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
> network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
> is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
> interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
> like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
> driven on (MA, WY) are like that.

You're saying basically the same thing I've been saying. But... people
who do routing and make maps are asking for three things, and
we separate them only incompletely.

(1) How "important" is this road to the long distance road network?
If you look at a small-scale map of the state of Maine, you'll virtually
always see US 1, 1A 2, 201; Maine 6, 11, 16, 161, 205. Maine
has only the one Interstate (95) plus a loop (295 from Portland to Augusta)
and a spur (395 into Bangor).

This is what guides the decision to render a road at a given scale.

(2) What are the road's physical characteristics (access control,
grade separation, number of lanes, width of shoulders, presence
or absence of traffic lights and stop signs)?

This is what guides the symbology to use. While Maine 205 is
an important road in its area, it is NOT rendered as a freeway,
or even a trunk. It's at best a primary and may even be a secondary,
and that's how is should be rendered even on a small scale
map.

(3) How fast does traffic ordinarily flow on the road?

This is what (should) guide the routing decision; routing is
ordinarily done to save the driver's time. It is of key importance
to navigation systems, but doesn't ordinarily guide rendering.


In places with sensibly-designed road networks, these three
concerns are strongly correlated, and a road that scores high
on any axis is likely to score high on the other two. But this
is the US. Using the standing of a road on any of these
three axes as a surrogate for the other two is doomed to
a suboptimal result.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Martijn van Exel  writes:

> In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real
> case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168
>
> Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in
> the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related
> driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss
> here or on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52903464 .

If there are enough abutters and driveways (and use of them) that people
driving on the road cannot basically act as if there are none, then it
fails as trunk, so from your description, that sounds good.

I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road
network" should have anything to do with it.   A regular US highway that
is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key
interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary".  Most of US 20 is
like this, as I understand it, and all or almost all of the parts I've
driven on (MA, WY) are like that.

> On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific
> rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk 'appendices' like the one I
> just downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky -- you end up
> with short segments that seem to end in nothing.

On point 2: Because the evolved rough consensus is about trunk being
something that would have qualified for primary that also has superior
physical characteristics, there is no reason to expect that displaying
trunk but not primary will result in a connected network or a coherent
map.  Displaying motorway but not trunk will likewise not be connected;
e.g. parts of MA 2 are trunk and part are motorway (and in Boston and
Western MA, merely primary).  The signed route is continuous and part of
the network, but if you start at Alewife you are on motorway (4 lanes
and traffic moves at 80+ mph) and eventually you get to Erving where
it's 1 lane each way, double yellow line, and posted 30, having dropped
to trunk and then had another motorway section.  But it is certainly a long
distance important route, and if you only render 2 EW routes in MA, it's
the second one to show after I-90.

My point then, is that choosing to render trunk but not primary is not
really a thing to do what preserves a sense of networks.  We absolutely
should not thing about how to use motorway/trunk/primary to make maps
rendered that way look good.

People may want to render based on ref tag, or some other "how important
is this route" tag, which could be some combination of how long the road
is and how far away the next road that goes roughly those places but is
faster is.  Others have talked about dropping some Interstate sections
(esp odd 3 digits) at small scales.



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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Richard Welty]

On 10/13/17 1:59 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just
> taken me a while to read through all the diary comments + what is
> being said in this thread. I intend to follow up with another diary
> post where I try to collect this smart crowd's thoughts and
> suggestions, but it will probably not until after State of the Map US
> that I get to this. 
>
> In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a
> real case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696
> interchange: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168 
i would concur that this is not a trunk by the conventions that most of
us in the US have
been using for the past several years. too many driveways at the very least.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me
a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this
thread. I intend to follow up with another diary post where I try to
collect this smart crowd's thoughts and suggestions, but it will probably
not until after State of the Map US that I get to this.

In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real
case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168

Since 1) this road does not seem to serve an important connecting role in
the long distance road network 2) the density of abutters and related
driveway / parking exits I judged a downgrade warranted. Please discuss
here or on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/52903464 .

On the topic of tagging for the renderer, two things: 1) A US-specific
rendering would be really neat 2) Trunk 'appendices' like the one I just
downgraded do make rendering at low zooms tricky -- you end up with short
segments that seem to end in nothing.

Martijn

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>
> > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
> > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
> > and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
> > different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
> > Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
> > tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
> > significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
> > significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
> > contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
> > ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
> > right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
> > the horns.)
>
> I think that would be a great step forward.
>
> The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default
> render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the
> debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Greg Troxel  wrote:

>
> Kevin Kenny  writes:
>
> > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
> > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
> > and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
> > different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
> > Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
> > tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
> > significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
> > significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
> > contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
> > ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
> > right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
> > the horns.)
>
> I think that would be a great step forward.
>
> The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default
> render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the
> debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.
>

Not sure where my previous reply in the thread went.  I'm wondering if
there's another tag that's in common with this situation?  That way the
highway tag can just deal with whether the way is some sort of surface road
or if it's an expressway or if it's a freeway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Kevin Kenny  writes:

> Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
> to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
> and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
> different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
> Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
> tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
> significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
> significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
> contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
> ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
> right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
> the horns.)

I think that would be a great step forward.

The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default
render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the
debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

On October 8, 2017 3:46:07 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
>County and rural roads, particularly of the 3- and 4-digit National
>Forest
>routes and...really pick an unpaved section line almost anywhere in an
>area
>bounded by the Rocky Mountain frontier, the Appalachian frontier, the
>Rio
>Grande River, and the permafrost line in Canada.  Unclassified could
>mean
>anything from so steep and unmaintained as to be barely passable by a
>4x4
>in otherwise pristine weather, to a 15 meter wide, graded-and-packed
>gravel
>road allowing a city car to rip along at 80+ km/h without trouble; a
>beat-up, worse-than-unpaved gravel-and-tar car-rolled tarmac to a
>smooth-as-glass concrete surface.  

Seems like some of those would be more properly tagged as a track. I was 
thinking more in terms of network classification for the primary and lesser 
highways. In that sense, while tertiary (for example) may be different quality 
in different areas, it serves the same purpose in the road network. Not too 
long ago many primary and lesser routes were unpaved or poorly maintained 
between cities, after all, especially out west and still today in some 
mountainous and particularly rural areas in the US. That said, if a family car 
can't safely navigate it, it should be a track given my understanding. 
Regardless, there is already a wide variation in what a primary, secondary, etc 
looks like between cities and suburbs/exurbs/rural areas. Obviously, they will 
vary even more in the wilderness.

There aren't a whole lot of through roads that are unusable in a sedan in good 
weather that I've seen in the lower 48, though. My standards are pretty low on 
that count, so maybe my opinion on that differs from others. I've been down a 
lot of barely maintained mountainous forest roads in small sedans without much 
incident. You just have to be prepared and know when to turn back. ;)

And just a minor bit of Tulsa history pedantry: The Riverside expressway plan 
never actually went beyond paper due to opposition from people living in Maple 
Ridge near the north end of Riverside, who had the clout in city hall to keep 
it from happening. The closest to it is the part between 71st and 91st, but 
that is the way it is because it wasn't built until well after the rest of it 
so the adjacent properties were mostly already developed with access to the 
east, thus the lack of intersections and driveways except at the section lines 
and the few developments that have been allowed between Riverside and the river 
itself.

-Nathan
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved
> someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other
> contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all
> parties.
>
> Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus is
> primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical
> implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come to
> mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections tagged
> motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in rural areas
> down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway system in Alaska
> where a single highway serves an immense largely unpopulated geographical
> and area. Most sections of those highways are "trunk" roads by most
> definitions yet they have normal at-grade intersections, intersections with
> driveways, tracks, etc.

Personally, I would not tag those two highways with anything below
'trunk', no matter how bad they get. (I can surely remember a time when the
Alaska Highway was not hard-surfaced owing to the difficulties of laying
down pavement over permafrost.) They are of too great regional importance
to show as anything less.

And this discussion is offering me, at least, some insight that may be
obvious to everyone else. The mention that there are three things being
conflated: administrative level, regional importance, and physical character;
has set some of the mental wheels in motion.

Looking through the lens of a data consumer:

Administrative level, which NE2 confused with the other two, is pretty
much a 'don't care.' If a highway is a freeway, for drawing it on a map,
it doesn't much matter whether it's Interstate 95 or County Road 40. All
that really effects is the shape of the shield on the highway's placards.

Relative local importance is what a renderer will use to decide whether
or not to show a road at a given map scale. I'd be entirely comfortable if
a map that fit all of the Northeast on a single piece of paper were to omit
a lot of the suburban motorways. I would not appreciate it, however,
if such a map in northern New England were to omit US highways
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 201, 302; Maine 11, 16, 27, and so on. They are just
two-lane roads, often with lowered speed limits and narrow shoulders,
but they are the arteries of the communities they serve. You can't
get to Rutland (the third-largest city in Vermont) without driving
one of those trunk roads - if trunk roads they are.

Physical character is what's of most interest to routers - the speed at
which you can traverse a road and the volume of traffic that it can
handle are the key things that a router will want to have in order to
decide whether to send traffic there or elsewhere.

Similarly, physical character is really what a renderer should use
to choose HOW to render a road (rather than WHICH roads to
render at a given scale. A freeway remains a freeway even if
it is of only local importance. A narrow, winding, two-lane
highway remains such even if you have the misfortune of
needing to drive a hundred miles on it to reach your destination.

So, all three attributes are important. (Administrative level is
the least so, except as a poor surrogate for 'regional importance.')
In a well-ordered country like much of Europe, administratative
level is a much better indicator of importance, and important
roads are more reliably maintained to a higher standard, so
all three attributes tend to run quite closely together. We
Americans inhabit a country that is fundamentally messier,
and this has led me to tag combinations like "highway=secondary
surface=compacted smoothness=bad lanes=2" for particularly
bad roads that are still the only reasonable connection between
two populated places.

Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
the horns.)

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Mills  wrote:

> Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It
> isn't part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway.
>

Fair enough.  It does retain a lot of it's features from when it was the
Riverside Turnpike and it's difficult to get out into (moreso than 71st or
Memorial) and unusually fast for most of it's length, hence why I was on
the fence on that one.  I've retagged it as primary given this additional
input.


> Personally, I think of trunk as more like motorway than like the other
> highway values. Motorway is clearly used only for controlled access
> freeways (excepting short sections in extremely rural areas where an
> Interstate doesn't quite meet the standard). I think of trunk as the same
> thing, but for expressways. For routes that are not primarily expressway, I
> think primary is a better classification. That assumes it otherwise meets
> the standard for primary.
>

Agreed.  As previously mentioned, I'm inclined to include paper interstates
as trunks as well, mostly because of the unique role such highways play in
the system overall.  Though outside of Alaska, the only paper interstates I
can think of offhand are in Puerto Rico (Interstates PR-*), all of which
are motorways anyway, downtown Tulsa (the unsigned I 444, the entire length
of which shares motorway with about 7 kilometers of US 75), and northwest
Portland (Interstate 505, a spur of I 405, but this may have been an
aborted interstate and shares about 3 kilometers of motorway with US 30),
making this almost certainly an Alaskan issue.  I'm relatively certain all
of Hawaii's interstates are, in fact, signed and motorway.

I can't think of any situations off the top of my head where
> unclassified/residential/tertiary/secondary/primary don't provide enough
> differentiation between sub-expressway roads.
>

County and rural roads, particularly of the 3- and 4-digit National Forest
routes and...really pick an unpaved section line almost anywhere in an area
bounded by the Rocky Mountain frontier, the Appalachian frontier, the Rio
Grande River, and the permafrost line in Canada.  Unclassified could mean
anything from so steep and unmaintained as to be barely passable by a 4x4
in otherwise pristine weather, to a 15 meter wide, graded-and-packed gravel
road allowing a city car to rip along at 80+ km/h without trouble; a
beat-up, worse-than-unpaved gravel-and-tar car-rolled tarmac to a
smooth-as-glass concrete surface.  Even if you take into account surface
and other qualitative tagging, the relative lack of low-end differentiation
is kind of a big ask for much of America.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Nathan Mills]

Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It isn't 
part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway.

Personally, I think of trunk as more like motorway than like the other highway 
values. Motorway is clearly used only for controlled access freeways (excepting 
short sections in extremely rural areas where an Interstate doesn't quite meet 
the standard). I think of trunk as the same thing, but for expressways. For 
routes that are not primarily expressway, I think primary is a better 
classification. That assumes it otherwise meets the standard for primary.

I can't think of any situations off the top of my head where 
unclassified/residential/tertiary/secondary/primary don't provide enough 
differentiation between sub-expressway roads. Using trunk to mean "more primary 
than primary" seems to reduce the usefulness of the map to simple data 
consumers that don't/can't take into account lanes and similar tags. Using 
trunk and motorway to mean "limited access expressway" and "controlled access 
freeway," respectively, seems to express the US road network better than 
conflating primary and trunk as NE2's edits often did. (And still are, in many 
places)

-Nathan

On October 8, 2017 2:29:26 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Shawn K. Quinn 
>wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> > Question for you all:
>> >
>> > What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than
>> primaries?
>> >
>> > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
>> > intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road
>in the
>> > US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not
>built
>> > to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation...
>I'm
>> > not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to
>> understand.
>>
>> On a related note, I recently downgraded Allen Parkway in Houston
>from
>> trunk to primary, based on the somewhat recent reconfiguration,
>adding
>> traffic signals and lowering the speed limit (which I removed without
>> adding a replacement, knowing only that it's no longer 40 mph but I
>> forgot if they made it 35 mph or 30 mph). It's possible the western
>part
>> (closer to where it changes names to Kirby Drive) may still
>technically
>> qualify as trunk, but it is kind of an edge case even then.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>
>Looks fair to me, I could see the argument going either direction on
>that
>one, falling into a similar situation to Tulsa's Riverside Parkway
>(which
>could a small trunk being a cancelled freeway or a large primary; I'm
>legitimately on the fence on that one myself).

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Shawn K. Quinn  wrote:

> On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > Question for you all:
> >
> > What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than
> primaries?
> >
> > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
> > intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the
> > US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built
> > to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm
> > not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to
> understand.
>
> On a related note, I recently downgraded Allen Parkway in Houston from
> trunk to primary, based on the somewhat recent reconfiguration, adding
> traffic signals and lowering the speed limit (which I removed without
> adding a replacement, knowing only that it's no longer 40 mph but I
> forgot if they made it 35 mph or 30 mph). It's possible the western part
> (closer to where it changes names to Kirby Drive) may still technically
> qualify as trunk, but it is kind of an edge case even then.
>
> Thoughts?
>

Looks fair to me, I could see the argument going either direction on that
one, falling into a similar situation to Tulsa's Riverside Parkway (which
could a small trunk being a cancelled freeway or a large primary; I'm
legitimately on the fence on that one myself).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

A little context, since I don't know how routine it is for folks to be
aware of the difference between an expressway (which is what I would call a
trunk in OSM terms) and a freeway (OSM's motorway).  I use the same
criteria as AASHTO, where a freeway is always dual carriageway, fully
controlled access, and no direct access to abutters.  Expressways would be
partially controlled dual carriageway with limited or no direct access to
abutters or fully controlled single carriageway with no direct access to
abutters.

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Dave Swarthout 
wrote:

> >I'd hazard to guess Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway"
> miles, particularly outside of metro Anchorage.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Here's a query for the George Parks Highway that runs between Fairbanks
> and Anchorage:
>
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/scw
>
> no relations, only ways are involved
>

Relation 331099 (highway A3), looks like.

Looks like a motorway from where it leaves A1 to the end of the median just
west of Seward Meridian near Anchorage.  Assuming Bing's imagery is
current, it should be mapped as a single carriageway, and I'd call that a
primary typically until it becomes a two lane road, and after that as a
secondary (since it's a state highway, that's the lowest I would take it)
until median starts again just west of Geist Road in Fairbanks where it
goes dual carriageway and becomes a motorway again (I wouldn't consider any
single carriageway as a motorway).  I would not normally consider a
single-carriageway without full access control (ie, exclusively accessible
via freeway style ramps) as a trunk.  *However*, its status as Interstate
A4, I would be inclined to call it a trunk anyway for that reason alone,
for the entire distance that it's not a motorway.

In Fairbanks, specifically, I'd call that dual carriageway a trunk from
where it begins on the west end to where it ends at A2, and not a motorway,
even if it wasn't an interstate, because of its mix of ramps and
intersections; it's definitely not a motorway in Fairbanks.  Motorways
shouldn't have intervening intersections or terminate on an intersection.
Trunks can have a mix of intersections and interchanges.

The relation for A3 was a hot mess, I couldn't resist the urge to clean
that up and make it easier for y'all to maintain, but I did *not* change
the tags or geometry on any of the ways.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> Question for you all:
> 
> What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than primaries? 
> 
> To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade
> intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the
> US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built
> to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm
> not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.

On a related note, I recently downgraded Allen Parkway in Houston from
trunk to primary, based on the somewhat recent reconfiguration, adding
traffic signals and lowering the speed limit (which I removed without
adding a replacement, knowing only that it's no longer 40 mph but I
forgot if they made it 35 mph or 30 mph). It's possible the western part
(closer to where it changes names to Kirby Drive) may still technically
qualify as trunk, but it is kind of an edge case even then.

Thoughts?

(Memorial Drive from Detering Street to Bagby Street, BTW, is pretty
much a textbook case of trunk in the US. Speed limit 50 mph, mostly
controlled access but not up to full freeway specifications. West of
Detering the speed limit drops and it goes through Memorial Park, but
there's still a relatively limited number of intersections.)

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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