Aw, sorry for my last post. I see now you’ve possibly misread or missed part of my email that you replied to. I was saying you have the first draft proposal where the OSM classification of a road is closely tied to the road’s official designation (i.e. trunk = national road, primary = provincial road, secondary = city/municipal road, tertiary = barangay road), which many of us disagree with because official road classifications has more to do with funding, and won’t create a good road map.
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:37 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for that, I can’t recall everything in the git ticket. Who actually > did the second proposal? > > On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:11 AM Erwin Olario <gov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Correction: I never proposed changing OSM highway classifications with >> government designations. >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> » email: erwin@ <er...@ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz* >> <http://ngnuity.xyz/> >> » mobile: https://t.me/GOwin >> » OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 >> D56B >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the >>> earlier discussion at the git (see >>> https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38) >>> >>> First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk >>> roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy (a.k.a. >>> “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely disagree with that >>> for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to trunk because it’s being >>> an critical link for movement of goods in one’s opinion, and led to primary >>> and below its “branches”. I agree trunk roads are generally vital highway >>> links, but this time, we need a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route >>> should a key road link between major population centers (i.e. large >>> cities). >>> >>> Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of the >>> existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national road. >>> Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during that time, >>> I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses (national primary, >>> national secondary, national tertiary) as found in the DPWH department >>> order I referenced, which has defining functional criteria that is of >>> relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to deemphasize official >>> designation and use informal tests that would only worsen the problem with >>> the already dense trunk road network. Add to the problem is the presence of >>> two proposals, one by me (which is based on multiple factors) and one by >>> Erwin (which ties OSM classification with gov’t designation). >>> >>> Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in the >>> wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in the wiki >>> are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any discussion >>> here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal guidelines; these >>> suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to take them as such. Again, >>> the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being more of an amendment to >>> the pre-existing scheme. >>> >>> Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing >>> classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions or >>> rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying these. I >>> would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as containing >>> conflicting, controversial or outdated information. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> talk-ph mailing list >>> talk-ph@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph >>> >>
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
