Still don't agree about osmand making trunks look like a divided highway/ expressway but whatever. Either way, if we tag only divided highways as trunk just because a certain renderer makes trunk roads look like divided highways (BTW, this is a better term to use here than expressway because it causes less confusion), that actually is a textbook example of tagging for the renderer.
-Evin (compdude) On Oct 14, 2017 10:57 AM, "Bradley White" <theangrytom...@gmail.com> wrote: > I use Osmand frequently; the point of the cased-line style of the > trunk & motorway tags is, agreeing with Paul here, to show some degree > of access control. This is in-line with many paper road atlases, > especially older ones. My point was that third-party applications > choosing to use this style is their own pejorative, and we should not > be basing tagging definitions on how third-party apps use the data. In > regard to the trunk debate, I understand and fully respect Paul's > position, but I personally disagree. I'm hoping the debate here will > encourage the US OSM community in getting closer to an agreeable > definition for trunk. > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Evin Fairchild <evindf...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > To add onto what Bradley was saying about third-party applications, I > just > > want to add that I've done some fact-checking about a claim that Paul > made > > in a previous email about how Osmand renders trunks under the assumption > > that they are expressways (to be clear, by this I mean divided highways > w/ > > at-grade intersections). After some fact-checking, this claim receives a > > truth rating of completely FALSE. > > > > Anyway, I looked at how Osmand renders motorways versus trunk and I don't > > know how it is that you, Paul, can say that trunk is assumed to be like > an > > expressway in Osmand's render. That is simply not true. The motorway in > > Osmand, for those who are unfamiliar, is red with a thin blue outline > around > > it, whereas trunk is just an orange-red line without any other color > > outlining it. This makes it look more like a single-carriageway road and > > less like an expressway like Paul falsely claims. All it looks like is a > > road that is of higher-importance than primary, and does NOT at all look > > like it could be an expressway. Usually, when maps show a divided > highway w/ > > at-grade intersections, it looks similar to a freeway, but a different > > color, whereas an undivided two-lane road typically looks nothing like an > > expressway or freeway. Thus, it is complete and utter lie to say that > Osmand > > makes the assumption that trunk roads are expressways. I don't know how > > mkgmap shows trunk vs. motorway since I don't have a Garmin and thus > cannot > > test it out, but I don't trust that Paul is telling the truth here > either. > > > > It's important to make truthful claims here, Paul; from now on, I will > have > > a VERY difficult time trusting anything you say. I know what I brought up > > was kind of a side point, but I think it's important to call out BS when > I > > see it. > > > > -Evin (compdude) > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Bradley White < > theangrytom...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> > The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known > >> > concepts; > >> > it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts. > >> > >> I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back > >> this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average > >> citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not > >> freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an > >> expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara > >> area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single > >> person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word > >> 'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name. > >> You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand > >> and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in > >> explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate > >> an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly > >> signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with > >> expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification > >> depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway > >> budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is > >> suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative. > >> > >> Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area > >> that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged > >> secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to > >> get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality > >> roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point > >> to many examples of urban roads that likely meet an expressway > >> definition in my current home city of Reno, including one under > >> construction. It would be absurd to me to tag them as being second in > >> importance only to motorways just because they are well-built roads, > >> because they're unimportant outside of getting around the relatively > >> small Reno-Sparks metropolitan area. > >> > >> The "highway" key is about importance. The only category we have > >> full-stop made equivalent with a type of road design is "motorway". > >> From trunk on down, it is just different grades of importance. These > >> are how the definitions are listed on the 'Key:highway' page, which I > >> consider to be definitive. The fact that the words "trunk", "primary", > >> "secondary", ... are used is an artifact of the UK roots of OSM. Had > >> this project started in the US, the keys would probably be "freeway", > >> "principal_artery", "major_artery", "minor_artery", "major_collector", > >> ... leaving UK users scratching their heads trying to figure out how > >> to adapt these definitions to their own network. In countries with > >> signposted expressway systems, it is meaningful in understanding the > >> road network to equate trunk with expressway, so they do that. I don't > >> think doing the same is meaningful in the U.S. given how much > >> variability and inconsistency there is with how and where expressways > >> are constructed. > >> > >> > Even a lot of renderers make this same assumption: mkgmap maps trunk > to > >> > Garmin's concept of expressway and motorway to freeway. Osmand, > easily > >> > the > >> > most popular data consumer for OpenStreetMap, makes the same > assumption > >> > (to > >> > the point that most of it's map painting styles, the only > >> > differentiation > >> > between trunk and motorway is a color pallette shift). It really > >> > wouldn't > >> > hurt the US community to have a "come to Jesus" moment on this, > >> > particularly when using the MUTCD definitions for expressway and > freeway > >> > as > >> > qualifiers for trunk and freeway, makes this relatively easy. The > >> > corollary to "don't tag for the renderer" is "don't break the > renderer". > >> > Highways without access control being excluded from trunk or motorway > >> > isn't > >> > an intrinsically bad assumption to make. Especially if we come to > >> > agreement on that, we can start having a productive talk on how to > make > >> > carto not suck for Americans without breaking it for everyone else. > >> > >> I'm really not that concerned with how third-party applications decide > >> to paint their roads. It's up to them to work with the data we > >> provide, not the other way around. If it is important to Garmin or > >> other applications to translate expressways, this can usually be > >> deduced from other tags, or we can trivially add an "expressway=" tag. > >> I also disagree that the carto in the US is bad, other than our > >> insistence that two-lane are categorically not trunk leaving > >> meaningless splatters of orange around the map at low zoom. > >> > >> Also, apologies ahead of time if I keep breaking the archive > >> hierarchy, I'm not totally familiar with how to drive a mailing list > >> and I have yet to find a guide online that explains how. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Talk-us mailing list > >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
