Great points, Daniel. And thank you very much for providing the summary of viewpoints. I found the online archive hard to follow.
When it comes to calling a route a trunk route I lean towards the functionality of the route as opposed to the design qualities. Excepting motorways, IMO trunk routes are about what is the purpose of the route with the following values: 1) Linking significant cities and/or destinations. 2) Traffic volumes. 3) Suitability for goods movement. The problem is these can be subjective and not objective. Overall I lean towards J.P. Kirby's definition. This is because I look at the end user's point of view for using a map. The vast majority is to find the most efficient way of travelling from point A to point B taking the route that has the highest speed limit with the highest number of intersection where they have priority over the cross streets. It doesn't matter if the road has two-lane or four-lanes. What matters is that the cross streets have stop signs or have signalized traffic light giving the trunk route priority over the cross street. This can include short linkages of un-number highway routes. Cheers, Ken On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Begin Daniel <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Bonjour Chandler, > > You have just raised an issue that was discussed last summer on this list, > without a final agreement (search for [Talk-ca] Highway recoding). > > > > I brought the issue because I found that the guideline proposes 3 > functional categories, in which one is called “trunk,” while I was on the > impression that OSM definitions were more oriented toward the physical > nature of the infrastructure (motorway, primary, residential, service, etc.) > > > > Summarizing the discussions … > > J.P. Kirby argued that functional categories better fits the spirit of the > British classification system that OSM Highway tagging is based on. > > Tristan Anderson did not exactly agree with the functional definitions but > he has been using them and he proposed to use a mix between functional and > infrastructure descriptions. > > Paul Norman did not agree with the functional definition (trunk) > > Stewart C. Russell proposed a trunk definition oriented toward an > infrastructure description. > > Adam Martin goes for Tristan definitions but suggest trunk could be > applied to TransCanada Highway only. > > > > IMO, OSM classification mostly aims at describing the road infrastructure, > not the strategic/economic importance a local government says about them. I > am inclined to agree with Stewart’s proposal of trunk definition… > > > > “A road that link cities/towns with some access limitations and higher > speed limit” > > > > The “some access limitations” proposed in his definition would make the > distinction between a motorway (full access limitations) and primary roads > (no access limitations) and it is actually pretty close to the BC > definition Paul just sent you. > > > > Further comments? > > Daniel > > *From:* Chandler Vancouver [mailto:chandler.vancou...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* January-26-16 14:34 > *To:* talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Highway recoding > > > > Hi everyone! > > > > To begin with I am relatively new to OSM but I am trying to figure the > Canadian definition for trunk status and find the current definition as > described on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk as > academic and not functional. And please forgive me if I covering previously > discussed material. Also, my context might from British Columbia focus as > well. > > > > This conversation comes up from a discussion I have had with another OSM > contributor, so I'm posting below my response to the definition as found at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk > > > > --- > > > > Thank you for updating me as to the status of trunk roads. And I have > begun correcting routes that are definitely not trunk roads. > > I think the concern I have is openstreetmap needs different layers > depending on the end users purpose. For example, if the end user is using > OSM for a GPS navigational unit the status of a trunk road based on the > Council of Ministers criteria is irrelevant. For that matter, for most map > users it is irrelevant. Most people using a map want to know essentially > know where number designated highways are so they can travel most > efficiently to their destination. > > However, there was/is precedence on OSM in the Lower Mainland region of BC > of a trunk highway status on a route that is not covered by the Council of > Ministers. Highway 7 (Lougheed Highway), west of the changeset you > corrected, and Highway 7B (the Mary Hill Bypass) are shown as trunk roads > on OSM yet they are not mentioned in the Canada’s National Highway System > Annual Report 2014 (page 29 - > http://www.comt.ca/english/nhs-report-2014.pdf ). > > The purpose of the Canada’s National Highway System Annual Report 2014 is > for government purposes. This document is part of the background for the > fourteen governments in Canada in how the Federal government will apply > funding for highway improvements. This covered in the documents > introduction on pages 2 and 3. The most salient quote: "The information > contained in the report that follows offers insight to the role played by > the National Highway System, its performance, the state of its > infrastructure and the investment being made in its restoration and > improvement." > > Again, this has nothing to with actually usage or intent from the map > users point of view. > > So the question is what is the purpose of OSM in the context of Canadian > trunk roads? > > The OSM definition of trunk road appears more academic than actual usage. > This is where I look at the following BC highways: > > 7 between Agassiz and Hope > > 9 between Highway 1 and Agassiz, combined with the Haig Highway > > 10 from Highway 91 to Highway 1 > > 11 from at least Highway 1 and the US border crossing > > 13 from Highway 1 to the US border crossing > > 15 from Highway 1 to the US border crossing. > > With the exception of Highway 10, all of these routes are important good > movement routes that connect Vancouver to intra-provincial, > inter-provincial, and international destinations. Yet they are not covered > by Canada’s National Highway System Annual Report 2014 and therefore, based > on OSM's rather limited definition of trunk roads are classified at best as > a primary road. > > In the case of Highway 10 it is a trunking route for commuter traffic that > links the Trans-Canada Highway to Langley, Surrey, and North Delta. Along > its Glover Road section and to Highway 1 it is a two-lane road, but west of > its junction with the Langley By-pass through to Highway 91 it is four-lane > highway with grade level signalized intersections and is more often a > divided highway / dual carriageway. And while it is not connecting major > urban centres itself, it works in conjunction with Highways 1 & 91 to > connect travellers to other areas beyond Metro Vancouver. Therefore, > operating a trunking route, not as a primary route. > > The broader OSM definition, versus the Canadian specific definition, > appears to be a far more inclusive definition. "high performance roads that > don't meet the requirement for motorway." > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk > > Further I did not know that the page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk existed > until you pointed it out to me. When you look at OSM overall page for trunk > road Canada is missing from the International equivalence table on page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk > > However, when I look at the Canada Border Services Agency's statistics of > vehicle movements it is clear these highways are most likely of trunk > highway status based on usage. > > Abbotsford-Huntingdon (Hwy 11) in 2013, this port of entry processed > approximately 1.2 million vehicles and 2.2 million travellers. > http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/time-temp/404-eng.html > > Aldergrove (Hwy 13) In 2013, this port of entry processed approximately > 786,000 vehicles and approximately 1.6 million travellers. > http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/time-temp/408-eng.html > > Pacific Highway (Hwy 15) In 2013, this port of entry processed > approximately 2.5 million vehicles and approximately 4.7 million > travellers. http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/time-temp/398-eng.html > > Please keep in mind that above numbers only represent northbound traffic > volumes and therefore it is most likely the actual volume is approximately > double. > > But what is interesting is that if you look at North Portal, Saskatchewan > the traffic volume is approximately 27% of the Aldergrove border crossing > (approximately 212,000 vehicles and approximately 329,000 travellers - > http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/do-rb/time-temp/604-eng.html ). However the > Canada’s National Highway System Annual Report 2014 defined Saskatchewan > Highway 6/39 as part of the National Highway System but not BC's Highway 13 > which is sees far more motor vehicle traffic. > > Perhaps the OSM group needs to re-examine the definition of trunk > designation from only being routes as covered by the Canada’s National > Highway System Annual Report 2014, but look into other value points such as > traffic volume and the intent of the highway's usage. > > Further, I feel that maps must extend beyond academic definitions and be > living documents that represent what the end user is seeking for > information. In the case of trunk roads it could include all or most > numbered routes that allow the end user an efficient travel route to reach > their intended destination. > > Cheers, > > Ken >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
