~~ Un résumé français suit ~~
Bonjour all, The few comments we got so far show that most of us, but not all, are uncomfortable with the “strategic” approach causing inconsistent descriptions of actual road “object” within Canada and between CA/US borders. Since it is summer, I will keep the discussion alive for a while to make sure all interested people made their point. Join the conversation whenever you want :-) We are waiting for more comments… Daniel Ps: comments received off-list will stay off-list – Please join the actual conversation J ~~~~ En résumé, je questionne la façon d’attribuer le tag ‘trunk’ aux routes principales tel que proposé dans un document gouvernemental (a) cité dans le wiki (c) et propose de clarifier la documentation une fois un consensus obtenu. Les commentaires reçu à date vont pour la plupart (mais pas tous) dans le sens qu’une définition de type ‘’stratégique’’ (une route est importante pour l’économie d’une région) produit des résultats inconsistants par rapport à la perception qu’offre la carte par rapport aux ‘’infrastructures’’ qui la supporte (les routes ‘’trunk’’ à Toronto, sur la Côte-Nord ou au Yukon sont très différentes les unes des autres alors que les autres classes de routes sont similaires à la grandeur du pays) – bref la description ‘’physique’’ serait plus appropriée. Vos commentaires sont bienvenus 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 From: Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd...@hotmail.com] Sent: July-22-15 16:44 To: 'Paul Norman'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding Bonjour Paul, You actually highlight what makes me uncomfortable with the “strategic” approach applied in many part of Canada. You are concerned about the road network in BC; I am concerned about the network in QC. Until few months ago, there were no trunk here; they are now everywhere. IMO, OSM classification mostly aims at describing the road infrastructures, not the strategic/economic importance a local government says about them (almost quoted you!-). I understand that Tristan has similar concerns about the consequences of such approach in road classification; even if he suggested that the current definitions (using strategic approach) are good guidelines (but need not be followed religiously). Other comments on the subject Daniel From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] Sent: July-22-15 15:59 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding On 7/22/2015 11:43 AM, Daniel Begin wrote: 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 Such an approach would be inconsistent with how highways are tagged in BC and expectations of locals. It would also make BC quite different than across the boarder in Washington. I can think of several motorways and trunk roads which are not on the list in the PDF, and many of the roads on the list are primary, or in at least one case, secondary. Some of the roads not on the list are more important in the transportation network than ones on it. The criteria being proposed are also inherently unverifiable. We map the world, not what a government database says. What about new roads? There's a new route that's opened up, and it's a mix of trunk and motorway, but it's not listed in the NHS report. To tag it primary when less significant roads constructed to a lower standard are tagged as trunk and motorway would be absurd. Because it has a lot of freight, it probably will become a NHS road at some point. Does its classification magically change when nothing has changed on the ground?
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
