Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
On 22 Feb 2010, at 23:39 , Stellan Lagerstrom wrote: > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >> did someone contact this user? any feedback? >> he/she reverted the whole revert again. >> Will try to revert some of the worst areas for now but can't spend to much >> time on this. >> >> > We had a brief exchange of emails through the OSM site. I wondered why > so much tertiary, got the answer: > > "My interpretation is that any fully paved road, with hard shoulders, > gutters, enough width for parking on both sides plus two traffic lanes > ... is tertiary. I except any road which is a dead end or merely a loop." > o boy, a a newbie who reads a bit wiki and adds the own interpretation and then changes what others did over month, and years without any consultation. > I replied we did not tag quite like that. He/she retorted that then we > were doing it wrong, and he/she had no problem with being different. pretty arrogant, really what we need in a community project > "There are areas of the US which have a road hierarchy where > "residential" makes sense and is even consistent with the actual UK > model. I have yet to see anything in the documentation or the talk pages > of the wiki which justifies such a drastic departure. " > > I said we should take it to the wiki since it is a community project, > and there we left it... > > Unfortunately, the wiki contains a lot of different ideas on how to tag > U.S. roads. It might be a good topic for a session at a U.S. SOTM to > hammer out some clear and easy-to-apply standards. this isn't just a U.S. problem. road classification is quite tricky and there has been lot of discussions everywhere. In the meantime there is a broad consensus that (relative) importance and physical layout are primary keys for classification. Standards? no way there is simply no way. some residential/service/tertiary roads in Santa Clara have better physical characteristics than I 80 near Donner pass. Still it is clear to anyone that I 80 is a motorway. Just tracing from Yahoo will yield entirely wrong data. mk408 changeset comment "reclass, de-abbrev, adjust based on yahoo ae" tells it all. an armchair mapper without knowledge of the reality out there. > > /Stellan > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > did someone contact this user? any feedback? > he/she reverted the whole revert again. > Will try to revert some of the worst areas for now but can't spend to much > time on this. > > We had a brief exchange of emails through the OSM site. I wondered why so much tertiary, got the answer: "My interpretation is that any fully paved road, with hard shoulders, gutters, enough width for parking on both sides plus two traffic lanes ... is tertiary. I except any road which is a dead end or merely a loop." I replied we did not tag quite like that. He/she retorted that then we were doing it wrong, and he/she had no problem with being different. "There are areas of the US which have a road hierarchy where "residential" makes sense and is even consistent with the actual UK model. I have yet to see anything in the documentation or the talk pages of the wiki which justifies such a drastic departure. " I said we should take it to the wiki since it is a community project, and there we left it... Unfortunately, the wiki contains a lot of different ideas on how to tag U.S. roads. It might be a good topic for a session at a U.S. SOTM to hammer out some clear and easy-to-apply standards. /Stellan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
did someone contact this user? any feedback? he/she reverted the whole revert again. Will try to revert some of the worst areas for now but can't spend to much time on this. On 4 Jan 2010, at 14:27 , Stellan Lagerstrom wrote: > We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all > residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. > This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, > not thoroughfares, etc. > Views? > Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 > > /Stellan > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Didn't find time to check this earlier. this is entirely wrong and the changeset commetn tells it all 'more likely to be tertiary than residential, in this area' any objections to revert this changeset as a whole? revert will skip all ways which have been touched in the meantime. It might leave some wrong tertiary tags. On 4 Jan 2010, at 14:27 , Stellan Lagerstrom wrote: > We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all > residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. > This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, > not thoroughfares, etc. > Views? > Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 > > /Stellan > > > > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Greg Troxel wrote: > > Stellan Lagerstrom writes: > >> We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all >> residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. >> This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, >> not thoroughfares, etc. >> Views? >> Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 > > I think tertiary is way overused. Starting with the notion that > highway=secondary should be a state highway, tertiary should be a > significant road that people use to get to a state highway, or at least > a link between population centers of thousands of people. Other main > roads within a city would then be unclassified. I tend to include county highways and city streets that have at minimum a marked centerline in the definition of tertiary. This seems to be congruous with map features. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Stellan Lagerstrom wrote: > We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all > residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. > This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, > not thoroughfares, etc. > Views? > Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 This guy's wrong. Based on the area around Joseph P Kelly Park, a lot of residential streets that truly are residential are being marked tertiary. Rule of thumb if you can tell the two apart, tertiary has painted centerlines. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
In an urban area, I think of tertiary as being the road you use to go between and through neighborhoods. I also "aim" for a particular aesthetic: Between every pair of primary roads, there usually will be one or two secondary roads. Between every pair of secondary roads, there usually will be one or two tertiary roads. Of course - it doesn't always work out this way. In a given area, all secondary roads should have roughly the equivalent capacity and significance, and all tertiary roads should have roughly the equivalent capacity and significance. But following this aesthetic makes a map attractive and useful to the reader. From: Greg Troxel To: Matthias Julius Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tue, January 5, 2010 7:37:16 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary Matthias Julius writes: > Greg Troxel writes: > >> Stellan Lagerstrom writes: >> >>> We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all >>> residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. >>> This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, >>> not thoroughfares, etc. >>> Views? >>> Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 >> >> I think tertiary is way overused. Starting with the notion that >> highway=secondary should be a state highway, tertiary should be a >> significant road that people use to get to a state highway, or at least >> a link between population centers of thousands of people. Other main >> roads within a city would then be unclassified. > > Not every secondary highway needs to be a state highway. I would tag > roads that have more than just local relevance as tertiary. Sure, I do too. But for me to call something secondary, it has to have the same level of importance to users as a state highwway. "more than just local relevance" makes sense for tertiary to me. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Matthias Julius writes: > Greg Troxel writes: > >> Stellan Lagerstrom writes: >> >>> We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all >>> residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. >>> This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, >>> not thoroughfares, etc. >>> Views? >>> Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 >> >> I think tertiary is way overused. Starting with the notion that >> highway=secondary should be a state highway, tertiary should be a >> significant road that people use to get to a state highway, or at least >> a link between population centers of thousands of people. Other main >> roads within a city would then be unclassified. > > Not every secondary highway needs to be a state highway. I would tag > roads that have more than just local relevance as tertiary. Sure, I do too. But for me to call something secondary, it has to have the same level of importance to users as a state highwway. "more than just local relevance" makes sense for tertiary to me. pgpJXAw5m2Hbd.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Greg Troxel writes: > Stellan Lagerstrom writes: > >> We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all >> residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. >> This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, >> not thoroughfares, etc. >> Views? >> Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 > > I think tertiary is way overused. Starting with the notion that > highway=secondary should be a state highway, tertiary should be a > significant road that people use to get to a state highway, or at least > a link between population centers of thousands of people. Other main > roads within a city would then be unclassified. Not every secondary highway needs to be a state highway. I would tag roads that have more than just local relevance as tertiary. Matthias ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
Stellan Lagerstrom writes: > We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all > residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. > This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, > not thoroughfares, etc. > Views? > Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 I think tertiary is way overused. Starting with the notion that highway=secondary should be a state highway, tertiary should be a significant road that people use to get to a state highway, or at least a link between population centers of thousands of people. Other main roads within a city would then be unclassified. pgp4GGZVBlWWE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Use of highway=tertiary
On 1/4/10 5:27 PM, Stellan Lagerstrom wrote: > We have a user (mk408) who seems intent on turning 3/4 of all > residential streets in the bay area into tertiary. > This seems excessive to me. Most of these are just residential streets, > not thoroughfares, etc. > Views? > Here's one changeset: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3519089 > that does seem to be rather a lot. my rule of thumb for tertiary in "normal" cities (e.g., not NYC) is that it has traffic lights at all intersections with other (tertiary, secondary, primary) highways and where there are stop signs, it's the "other" (residential/unclassified) road that's controlled. richard ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
