Thank Tristan for your suggestions concerning the documentation.
I agree that "there's so much that needs to be added to the map that I don't see tinkering with highway classifications as a priority". That is why clarifying definition is necessary since some users are currently tinkering with trunk/primary tagging. I am not comfortable with using the "strategic categories" approach for trunk since it implies we will find very different road types when looking at them around Toronto or in Yukon, while all lower classes will probably look very similar wherever you are. Contrarily to JPK, I did not find any strong relationship between UK "strategic" road classification (e) and OSM (f). However, the important point is to agree on the definitions and have them clearly state in the wiki. So far, I understand we have 2.5 votes for tagging trunk/motorway all roads identified as "core route" in document (a); 0.5 against (I am still torn between the two approaches!-) More comments would be appreciated Daniel a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf e) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31 5783/road-classification-guidance.pdf f) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway From: Tristan Anderson [mailto:andersontris...@hotmail.com] Sent: July-22-15 13:17 To: Daniel Begin; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: RE: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding As I've always understood it, highway=trunk is used for core routes in document (a) that Daniel mentioned. It ignores routes marked as feeder and northern/remote. highway=primary is for each province's network of primary highways that aren't motorways or trunks. I don't exactly agree with the above definitions but they were already in place when I got here so I've been using them. For one thing, document (a) was published in 2005, and things change. I'm also not entirely comfortable with the fact that the most a city-maintained road could ever hope for is secondary. Toronto's Black Creek Drive should, in my mind at least, have a higher classification than Highway 108 north of Elliot Lake. In general, OSM higways should be based on how important they are to the overall road network, independent of any official classification. On the other hand... I kinda like the way Canadian cities look with their simple networks of orange thoroughfares. London, Paris and Washington are an incomprehensible mess of roads with varying classifications which don't seem to be of benefit to the end user. The eight-level hierarchy of highway classifications OSM gives us to work with is overkill. At least Canada is consistent, which is more than can be said for a lot of countries. Plus there's so much that needs to be added to the map that I don't see tinkering with highway classifications as a priority. So here's what I suggest: the definitions above are good guidelines but need not be followed religiously. If anyone thinks a specific road should be promoted or demoted, let's discuss it here and make it happen. As for the wiki pages. In (b), Canada is listed twice. I think the entire lower row can be deleted and the upper row still stands. Maybe a note could be added saying there is some flexibility to the trunk/primary guidelines. In (c), the section on trunk roads should be changed. Trunk roads do not need to be limited access. Most of them are not. I also don't think people should be told to tag anything surface=paved/unpaved. Instead surface should be whatever it is (asphalt, concrete, gravel, etc). The "Sub-national and below" section needs to be rewritten or copied over from (b). And now you have my two cents too. Comments? _____ From: jfd...@hotmail.com To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:39:28 -0400 Subject: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding I would like to have community's point of view on this topic. Recently I have seen most primary roads in my area being recoded as trunk by at least two users. They both refer to a governmental document (a) to justify their edits but I disagree with their interpretation. I have asked them to discuss their interpretation with the OSM community but they did not; so let's do it I thought there was an agreement on highway tagging scheme in which provincial primary highway that does not meet freeway standards should be identified as primary road, as described in Highway:International equivalence (b). For instance provincial highways 2-14 in Ontario, 100-series highways in Quebec, Highway 95 in BC were initially tagged as primary road. Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c). IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core, Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions. I prefer looking at OSM highway as "infrastructure categories" -my understanding of OSM definitions- rather than as "strategic categories" as described in (a) and partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest as long they are applied consistently (d). I would like to get a consensus from the Canadian community on trunk/primary roads tagging scheme and eventually clarify available documentation (b, c) accordingly. I might also add Tristan Anderson definitions on forestry roads (talk-ca 15-07-15). Comments are obviously welcome J Daniel a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence c) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines d) The Canadian tagging guideline defines trunk as a roadway that has limited access; while OSM Features (wiki) defines trunk as "high performance roads that don't meet the requirement for motorway" which means there is no/little access limitations! _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
