Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types

2010-01-22 Thread maning sambale
Hi, With the advent of more sat images outside Metro Manila I would like to re-visit this discussion regarding road classes in rural areas. As Eugene discussed below, rural roads are different. I think we should use the track and tracktype tags for most rural roads.

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread ianlopez
Maybe we should describe unclassified roads in the Philippine context as roads within verified and/or urban areas that are of mixed use (commercial, retail, industrial, residential, farmland), while the residential roads can be described as a road in either urban or rural areas that are within

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread maning sambale
I feel we should simplify it (although not too much), not everything here is applicable: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway Another example, I don't feel like using the tag living_street. Here's the highway length stats to give us a general idea what highway tags are currently in use:

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread riber101-osm
I happy this discussion comes up and I would like to chime in on this discussion. Reviewing the map reveals that many places roads seems to have too high of a classification, misleading people to use roads that are not meant for a lot of traffic. From an overall perspective the classification

Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types

2010-01-22 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
Here's my interpretation: unclassified and residential are the lowest-importance general roads. These two form the lowest level (above the service-type roads) and residential is used for roads within residential areas like subdivisions. Then in terms of increasing importance, roads go from

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:50 PM, riber101-...@yahoo.com wrote: Looking at the length of road of the different types this seem to underline the problem. Motorway, Trunk, Primary, secondary and tertiary should only be a tiny fraction of all the roads. The bulk of the roads should be of

Re: [talk-ph] changes of raod types

2010-01-22 Thread Ian Haylock
Hi, after a long break from OSM I discoverd the keep right website.

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread Ray
Hi, Reviewing the map reveals that many places roads seems to have too high of a classification, misleading people to use roads that are not meant for a lot of traffic. From an overall perspective the classification of roads should be used to guide people which roads to prefer. +1 I'm

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread maning sambale
Let me just remind that whatever comes up as a consensus please add them in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Philippines/Mapping_conventions Excellent discussion btw. On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Ray rayosm1...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, Reviewing the map reveals that

Re: [talk-ph] changes of road types

2010-01-22 Thread Totor
Hi everybody, I use a similar approach to Eugene. Smallest roads = unclassified if industrial or with few houses, residential if the area is, well, residential... Biggest roads and main links crossing the city = primary The others secondary or tertiairy. Trunc roads should be reserved for