I haven't done much mapping for some time and would be happy to abide by whatever you come up with if I ever get back into it.
My labelling of roads was generally around their physical attributes and whether they led anywhere important (ie. Glen Osmond road leads from the freeway to the city) but I always had doubts over whether I was doing the right thing. I wish you luck in attempting to define some standards, ~Cameron (Justcameron) On 10/03/2008, Darrin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:52:00 +1100 > Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyway, rest assured this is a "live debate". Check out > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative/physical_descriptions > > That's an interesting page, good to see people are addressing that > issue on a global level. Should that proposal go through it > automatically eliminates one of the options as 'valid' ... Shall have > to keep an eye on it. > > > > <discussion of reference definition, vs physical definition> > > > <Ian's comments> > > OK, in a sense it's good to see people as unsure as I am :) > > > However, in rural areas of NSW, the system doesn't work so well. If > > you use the reference method, you will find that there are a handful > > of state highways, a couple of auslink roads, and that leaves 99% of > > all the roads without a reference classification. This would > > dramatically reduce the usefulness of the resulting map to use a > > reference classification. Most roads would look the same. Many main > > routes between towns have no reference classification at all. > > Perhaps NSW will one day get it's funding to finish the MABC roll-out, > that might help a lot, but yes until then I don't envy your position. > South Australia is a little better off with a nicely defined set of A & > B roads to guide things along. > > > It would be nice if Australia had a reference system that would work > > comprehensively. It doesn't, and that leaves us always requiring a > > certain element of subjectivity. > > 3 States have (TAS, VIC, SA), 2 are part way there (NSW & QLD), it's a > start :) > > > I would say - if there is a workable reference system for a particular > > area, then it is best to use the reference system, and make a > > correspondence to the OSM types. Document the area and the reference > > system on the wiki, and coordinate a discussion to ensure there is a > > consensus for that area. > > Right this is where I kind of got to with Adelaide, I guess my first > email was a call out to start such a discussion so I'll change the > subject to reflect that... > > > If you can come up with a practical, yet unambiguous and objective, > > system for all of Australia, that would be great. Short of laying > > seige to the roads departments and councils, I don't think that is > > going to happen. > > Yeah, that's a good dream that one :) > > > I'm sure if you have ideas for improvement, or a > > workable reference system for Adelaide, then you just need to > > convince people of the benefits, and update the doco. > > OK, to take this a step further I'll start the ball rolling in Adelaide: > (As we get a consensus I'll write a Adelaide/South Australia Wiki page > to reflect the decisions, I'm happy to do that) > > 1) Trunk Roads in City > > I propose that all "A" routes in Adelaide and only "A" Routes are > labelled trunk. > > I can understand some hesitation from people with respect to the A22, > parts of the A16 because they are low quality roads, but if we're going > to tag to a reference pattern they need to fit. > > 2) Definition of rural vs city area > > I propose that the area bounded by lines joining Two Wells, Gawler, > Birdwood, Mount Barker, Willunga, Aldinga and the Coast line are > defined as "City" area, and that areas outside these are considered > "Rural" (We can define other "city" areas around Mount > Gambier/Whyalla/Whatever if people have definitions?). I think the > current Rural definitions as provided on the Wiki are pretty close to > spot on for these areas. > > 3) Primary Roads in City: > > There are about 5 "B" Roads inside the definition of the city area, > otherwise there's a whole bunch of roads in the city itself which > server the cross-city tasks the road definition suggests these should > be. However I think there are currently way too many roads in Adelaide > marked as primary which AREN'T serving significant cross-suburb > purposes (Prospect Road is one that immediately comes to mind). I would > like to suggest we the mappers of Adelaide draw up a list of "Primary" > roads which are the only ones that should be marked primary. > > 4) Further levels: For later, a few steps at a time :) > > I'm particularly would like input from those guys mapping lots > of Adelaide with me (jackb, justcameron, adhoc?) since you guys and I > will tread on each others toes if we're not seeing eye-to-eye. > > > -- > > =b > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au
