Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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/

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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"

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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"

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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 >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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. >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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