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

what's on the ground". -Original Message- From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Alan Mintz Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:12 PM To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United S

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

On 12 March 2010 08:44, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > > One of the national road that I used regularly > > in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would > > consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a

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

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote: >> >> > How so? I said "motorway and/or trunk roads". Any roads which don't >> > qualify as motorways would be trunks. >> >> But expres

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

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

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

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:39:15 -0500, Anthony wrote: > > > If bicycles aren't prohibited, it's not a > > motorway. > > Then most of the US doesn't have motorways, by your definition; an idea > I'm pretty sure most would find to be absurdist. >

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

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

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

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote: > How so? I said "motorway and/or trunk roads". Any roads which don't > qualify as motorways would be trunks. But expressways are trunks. Can you provide an example of an expressway that isn't paved and isn't divided? __

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

On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote: > One of the national road that I used regularly > in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would > consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a > secondary road in some locations. The route is givin

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

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:21:17 -0500, Anthony wrote: > > > Yeah. Motorway is simple. A road designated exclusively for motor > > vehicles. > > That's not true for most of America (as only 23 states prohibit bicycles > and pedestrians on freewa

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

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony > > wrote: > > > >> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: *Motorways > >> are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic. *trunks ar

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

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

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

On 8 March 2010 22:23, Paul Johnson wrote: > > That's true, which makes me wonder if it's time to move primary/secondary/ > tertiary from ways highway= tags to route relations (since those three > highway tags speak more to the kind of route on the way rather than the > way itself). > > I am not

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

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:19:31 +, Emilie Laffray wrote: > On 7 March 2010 10:46, Paul Johnson > wrote: > > >> >> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. I >> don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work >> differently in the UK than it does in Canada

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

On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony > wrote: > >> The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: *Motorways >> are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic. *trunks are the most important >> roads in a geographic area which aren't mo

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

On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony wrote: > The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: > *Motorways are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic. > *trunks are the most important roads in a geographic area which aren't > motorways. > As a corollary to this, Alaska should have seve

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently". The laws of different > > states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by > the > > map is different. The maps, therefore, are going to be diffe

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

On 7 March 2010 10:46, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. I > don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work > differently in the UK than it does in Canada, or in Canada > differently from the US. So why should the same map

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "work differently".  The laws of different >> states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the >> map is different.  The maps, therefore, are going to be different.

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson wrote: > Richard Welty wrote: > > > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be > found > > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary > > because they're state highways? > > I would say so. There's

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

On 7 Mar 2010, at 11:59 , Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >>Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. >> yes, please osm is an international project > > I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that comes > at a

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

Richard Welty wrote: > probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be found > in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary > because they're state highways? I would say so. There's the "surface" tag, too... surface=gravel, surface=unpaved... _

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

Bill Ricker wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided, >> though all of them are in Alaska. >> > > wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ? No, not outside Anchorage, and even then, barely. > How d

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

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

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

Hi, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. > > yes, please osm is an international project I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that comes at a price, and one has to carefully think about whether it mak

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. > > > yes, please osm is an international project > When objectively describing the features on the ground, sure. But >

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

On 3/7/10 11:19 AM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bill Ricker > wrote: On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote: I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided, though

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bill Ricker wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided, >> though all of them are in Alaska. >> > > wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ? > http://en.wikipedi

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided, > though all of them are in Alaska. > wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ? How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no ? "The exception that

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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Anthony wrote: > > Yeah. Motorway is simple. A road designated exclusively for motor > > vehicles. The rest should probably be handled on a state by state basis. > > Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme for all of its states. Why >

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

Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: >> > I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what >> > network a particular road belongs to. >> > >> > Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwi

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

Richard Weait wrote: > I don't know of a US route that is unpaved, but I suppose it could > exist. I'd be sure to add surface=unpaved, rather than suggest that > all US routes are now unpaved. ;-) I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided, though all of them are in Alaska

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

On 3/6/10 5:21 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait > wrote: Whoa! There are too many places, in my experience, where those network memberships do not line up with expectation of physical characteristics. Yeah. Motorway is si

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

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what > > network a particular road belongs to. > > > > Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk, otherwise... > > US highway = p

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

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

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

Alan Mintz wrote: > - freeway, expressway, etc. = OSM motorway or trunk > - primary arterial = OSM primary > - secondary arterial = OSM secondary > - minor arterial and/or collector = OSM tertiary > - local = OSM residential or unclassified I think it would be better if greater weight were given

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

On 5 Mar 2010, at 3:29 , Richard Weait wrote: > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell > wrote: >> didn't know this page exists. >> Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some >> deviations will make sense here and there. > > I suppose adding tags for cfcc

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

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM, McGuire, Matthew wrote: > I see three dimensions of road classification at play here. > > 1) System > 2) Function > 3) Observed Character > > System is the easy one. That is the road system(s) that that the road belongs > to especially for signage, but also for ro

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

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell wrote: > didn't know this page exists. > Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some deviations > will make sense here and there. I suppose adding tags for cfcc and hfcs makes sense as an addition to existing tagging. U

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

didn't know this page exists. Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some deviations will make sense here and there. On 4 Mar 2010, at 15:37 , Kevin Samples wrote: > Hi, > I am a proponent of using the Highway Functional Classification System, > which Alan has describe

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

Hi, I am a proponent of using the Highway Functional Classification System, which Alan has described below and is on the wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System I've classified roads in Clarke County, Georgia and the surrounding counties using the HFC

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

At 2010-03-04 09:38, McGuire, Matthew wrote: >... >A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a >person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to >classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see >on the ground. Charact

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

"McGuire, Matthew" writes: > I see three dimensions of road classification at play here. > > 1) System > 2) Function > 3) Observed Character I think you have this exactly right. I view current practice as more or less a blend of system (interstate/us/state) and observed character (trunk), with

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

ll three dimensions. >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: David ``Smith'' [mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM >> To: McGuire, Matthew >> Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us

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

om] > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM > To: McGuire, Matthew > Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road > tagging > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew > wrote: &

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

[mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM To: McGuire, Matthew Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew wrote: > The US Census Feat

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

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew wrote: > The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of > roads. > This would at least tie it to an existing US standard. > > http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc > > This designation exists in many OSM roads

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

rch 03, 2010 12:00 PM To: McGuire, Matthew Cc: Nathan Edgars II; Talk Openstreetmap; Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging On 3 Mar 2010, at 7:45 , McGuire, Matthew wrote: > The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types

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

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

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

Subject: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging I'm proposing a couple first principles to govern whatever we decide on for tagging. Please discuss here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging#Proposed_first_princ

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

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