I don't see the logic of downgrading trunk roads merely because there is a parallel expressway. Our expressways are toll=yes roads and if these expressways did not exist, then these trunk roads would correctly be tagged as highway=trunk. I think that we disregard the existence of highway=motorway roads for the purposes of classifying the rest of the road network. Many people for various reasons want to avoid going through toll roads and having highway=trunk roads as an indicator of suitable alternate routes is important.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:51 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote: > Continuing on, I raised this unanswered question about downgrading trunks > where significantly bypassed by a parallel expressway (unless it has a > significant section resembling an expressway as in proposal). I thinking of > doing that for these road segments currently tagged trunk. > > - National Highway/Maharlika Highway/Manila South Road (Route 1, > Muntinlupa-Calamba-STAR Santo Tomas exit) — bypassed by SLEX > - JP Laurel Highway/Manila-Batangas Road (Route 4, Santo Tomas-Batangas > City) — bypassed by STAR Tollway > - MacArthur Highway (Route 1, Caloocan-Tabang, Guiguinto) — bypassed by > NLEX > - Osmeña Highway (Route 145) and Quirino Avenue (Route 140, Roxas > Boulevard-Osmeña Highway) — bypassed by Skyway > — Olongapo-San Fernando-Gapan Road/Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Route 3, > Dinalupihan Junction-Olongapo) — bypassed by SCTEX > — Manila North Road (Route 2, TPLEX Urdaneta exit-Kennon Road) > > (for future downgrades, once new parallel expressway under construction > opens. Might need some discussion) > > — Aguinaldo Highway (Route 62/419, Bacoor-Dasma-Tagaytay) — to be bypassed > by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite. > — Antero Soriano Highway/Centennial Road/Tanza-Trece Martires Road (Route > 64, Kawit-Tanza-Trece Martires) — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also > downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite. > — Governor’s Drive (Route 65, Dasma-Biñan) — to be bypassed by CALAX. > Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite. > — Tarlac-Santa Rosa Road (Route 58) — to be bypassed by CLLEX (downgrade > to be done once whole Tarlac City-Cabanatuan route is opened) > > Beside that, I’ll prepare maps (for Luzon, Metro Manila, Panay, Negros, > Cebu, Samar and Leyte, and Mindanao) of routes to be classified trunk > using the proposed criteria. There is a significant need to rationalize the > trunk networks, especially in the less populated islands or regions. > From there, we go on to determine the primaries and so on. I’ll also post a > list > of major roads and their proposed future classifications (to be divided by > region and province) on the wiki. Any further comment or feedback is > welcome here or on the wiki. > > On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:54 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For names, I agree there is a problem. Posted road name can be >> inconsistent across different jurisdictions or even within the same >> jurisdiction. That’s the reason we need to review how we map street names >> (we rely too much on road signs). There’s a lot of instances the road signs >> omit suffixes (especially “Street/St”) while the addresses use the full >> name. We seem to forget a road’s name= is also used for addr:street=. >> >> The main point behind the proposed guidelines is to better align PH >> practice with global tagging practices. We have a road classification >> system that is too watered down and is somewhat only appropriate to urban >> areas. Our practice on naming roads had rather preferred short names to >> reduce clutter and deter mappers who abbreviate them, but that somewhat >> raises issues about mapping for the renderer (whether to keep, abbreviate >> or remove street name affixes is up to them), plus, we’ve got into the >> problem of relying too much on street signs, forgetting some roads have no >> names posted on any official road sign and the name verifiable from asking >> locals or finding posted addresses, and addresses posted on business signs >> (or even their ads, business cards and things) should be used as sources as >> well. >> >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:09 AM Michael Cole <colemic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> We have a problem with names even 1 way streets, real law vs locality. >>> And i live in poblacion mkt, mmda break the actual law, who is correct? Do >>> we take the word of corodiles over the country or.enforce the law and get >>> people.arrested fined illegally? >>> >>> My 2 cents .. >>> >>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 1:23 PM Jherome Miguel, <jheromemig...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> After somewhat slow progress to gather ideas and feedback for a new >>>> road classification scheme, I finally decided to write the final version of >>>> the new tagging scheme at: >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads >>>> (see “Classification” section) >>>> >>>> The proposal is planned to replace those at >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions >>>> (sections, >>>> “Roads”, “Names”) >>>> >>>> *Why? *The existing road classification scheme since 2015 needs a >>>> major rewrite since I’m seeing major problems with the tree analogy used to >>>> justify the existing scheme. Why use primary for every road to each >>>> municipality regardless of its population size (just because they’re a >>>> branch or an alternate to a trunk)? Shouldn’t we use trunks only on the >>>> most important highway links between the largest cities beside the >>>> expressways? Many of our provinces lack secondaries in the rural area but >>>> do have lots of tertiaries surrounded by trunk and primary roads (and a >>>> total lack of secondary roads). Lots of Philippines mappers (including me) >>>> ignore that bad scheme, which just came to effect without discussion or >>>> consultation. It’s also time for us to take community population sizes as >>>> well as designations in account when classifying roads. >>>> >>>> Also, guidelines about road names are to be affected as well (following >>>> latest discussion). This includes changes in the existing guideline to >>>> prefer full names as used in addresses (since names posted in street signs >>>> can be inconsistent). One open question is on how to name many of the major >>>> rural roads without posted names (national roads aside, whose names, unless >>>> the locally verifiable posted name is different, can be found from the DPWH >>>> road database) until their actual names are verified. For me, it’s in the >>>> form “<most important community>-<less important community> Road”, though I >>>> also experimented with adding noname=yes instead of adding placeholder >>>> names using the format mentioned above. >>>> >>>> Any comments/suggestion/feedback on this are welcome here or on the >>>> article’s talk page. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> talk-ph mailing list >>>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ > talk-ph mailing list > talk-ph@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph >
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
