On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Assuming the map is correctly classified in Europe, I'm seeing many > fragments of motorways and trunks all over the map. Is this an > artifact of local definitions? Or is it intentional and desirable?
I should note that I don't see such artifacts in England, Australia, South Africa, Russia, Japan, among others. > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Matej Lieskovský > <lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Don't get me wrong, this system might work well for countries without an >> official system, but what do you expect to happen in the EU? >> Will we have "highway=primary" + "class=tertiary" because some random road >> happens to be a shortcut? Or do you expect us in Czechia to use "class=II" >> while germans use "class=S" so that it actually matches the signage? Will >> the renderer parse ref numbers (and ignore the main tag) or will we receive >> hundreds of complaints about some section of the road having (what every >> local resident will consider to be) the wrong class? >> >> How do you determine "important cities" when even the line between towns and >> cities is country-dependant? Or is using administrative differences only not >> OK for roads? >> >> Even Waze actually follows local administration. >> >> >> Long story short: I am strongly against deploying this system in countries >> with a functioning official classification system. >> >> On 23 February 2018 at 18:06, Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Administrative classification is not strictly related everywhere to >>> signage, structure and access rights. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:12 PM, djakk djakk <djakk.dj...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > I know that « trunk » is country-dependent but why not moving it to a >>> > worldwide definition ? Administrative classification could be moved to >>> > other >>> > tags :) >>> > >>> > >>> > djakk >>> > >>> > Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 16:06, Matej Lieskovský >>> > <lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> >>> > a écrit : >>> >> >>> >> Greetings >>> >> I'd like to caution against using this system globally. In Czechia, >>> >> roads >>> >> are formally classified into classes, which influence signage, ref >>> >> numbers >>> >> and so on. Deploying this system here would make the tag >>> >> confusing/useless >>> >> and would likely face enormous backlash. I have no problems with using >>> >> this >>> >> system in countries without a clearly defined road classification, but >>> >> please don't touch the countries where there is no doubt about what >>> >> class >>> >> any given road is. >>> >> Happy mapping! >>> >> >>> >> On 22 February 2018 at 16:20, djakk djakk <djakk.dj...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> >>> >>> I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, >>> >>> administrative-free, tends to the same osm map between countries. >>> >>> >>> >>> djakk >>> >>> >>> >>> Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien >>> >>> <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it >>> >>>> by reading a wiki talk page [1]. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] criticises highway >>> >>>> classification >>> >>>> as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of >>> >>>> controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), >>> >>>> especially >>> >>>> regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to >>> >>>> seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme [3] >>> >>>> which >>> >>>> I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily >>> >>>> summarised like this: >>> >>>> - trunk: best routes between large/important cities >>> >>>> - primary: best routes between cities and above >>> >>>> - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above >>> >>>> - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above >>> >>>> - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For example, the best route between two villages would be at least >>> >>>> tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or >>> >>>> a >>> >>>> city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are >>> >>>> part of a route between more important places. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It surely raises the problem of determining optimal routes. Maybe a >>> >>>> sensible criterion would be average travel time without traffic >>> >>>> congestion. A number of vehicles may be selected for this average - >>> >>>> could be motorcycle+car+bus+truck, or simply car+truck. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Early results in my area [4, in Portuguese] seem promising and have >>> >>>> produced more consensus than any previous proposals. To me, this >>> >>>> method seems to: >>> >>>> - resist alternations in classification along the same road >>> >>>> - work across borders (where classification discontinuities are >>> >>>> expected because each country is using different classification >>> >>>> criteria) >>> >>>> - account for road network topology >>> >>>> - work in countries with mostly precarious/unpaved roads or >>> >>>> without/unknown official highway classes >>> >>>> - work between settlements as well as within settlements >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Borderline cases are probably inescapable in any system that does not >>> >>>> use solely criteria that are directly verifiable - from the ground, >>> >>>> or >>> >>>> from the law. Maybe, in certain developed countries, the system is so >>> >>>> well organized that merely checking signs/laws is sufficient. That >>> >>>> does not mean it is like that everywhere on the planet. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> OSM has so far received a lot of input from communities in developed >>> >>>> countries (mostly Europe, North America and Australia) and hasn't >>> >>>> given much attention to less developed/organized countries. What >>> >>>> comes >>> >>>> closest to this is what the HOT Team does, but the judgment of road >>> >>>> classification one can do from satellite images in a foreign country >>> >>>> is much more limited than the criteria that have been raised in this >>> >>>> thread so far. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I wouldn't endorse tags such as maxspeed:practical due to lack of >>> >>>> verifiability (it should be obvious that different types of vehicles >>> >>>> would achieve different practical speeds). It is better to use the >>> >>>> legal speed in maxspeed=* and describe the practical reason for a >>> >>>> lower speed using surface=*, smoothness=*, and, who knows, maybe the >>> >>>> not yet approved hazard=* [5] (though that is intended for signed >>> >>>> hazards, not subjective/opinionated hazards). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> For the sake of long-term sanity, I also wouldn't mix the purpose of >>> >>>> one tag with the purpose of other tags. To describe the surface, >>> >>>> there >>> >>>> is surface=*, smoothness=* and tracktype=*. To describe access >>> >>>> rights, >>> >>>> there is access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc. To >>> >>>> describe legal speed, maxspeed=*. To describe curves, there's >>> >>>> geometry. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Purpose, perhaps, is the main issue. What is the purpose of highway >>> >>>> classification? Is it to save us the work of adding extra tags? Is it >>> >>>> to allow the renderer to produce a cleaner output at low zoom levels? >>> >>>> Is it to allow routers to assume default speeds? Maybe to guide their >>> >>>> routing heuristics? Is it to express some sort of importance? If so, >>> >>>> by which perspective - urbanistic, traffic engineering, movement, >>> >>>> commercial value, cultural/fame, historic, some combination of those? >>> >>>> Should the purpose be the same in every country? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It may be interesting to also discuss the classification adopted by >>> >>>> other maps. I don't have a reference for Google (originally >>> >>>> TeleAtlas) >>> >>>> or Here.com (originally Navteq), but Waze publishes its per-country >>> >>>> road classification criteria in its wiki. [6-16] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> [1] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#change_.22high_performance.22_to_.22high_importance.22 >>> >>>> [2] >>> >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags >>> >>>> [3] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ftrebien/Drafts/Generic_highway_classification_principles#Schematic_diagram_and_general_comments >>> >>>> [4] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=674296#p674296 >>> >>>> [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard >>> >>>> [6] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Road_types >>> >>>> [7] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/UnitedKingdom/Roads#Road_types >>> >>>> [8] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Canada/Main_Page#Road_Types >>> >>>> [9] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Commons/Road_Types/India >>> >>>> [10] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Brazil/Como_categorizar_e_nomear_vias >>> >>>> [11] >>> >>>> https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Germany/Kartenlegende_(Deutschland) >>> >>>> [12] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/France/Classification_France >>> >>>> [13] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Italy/Tipologia_delle_strade >>> >>>> [14] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Indonesia/Panduan_Tipe_Jalan >>> >>>> [15] https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%B1%BB%E5%9E%8B >>> >>>> [16] >>> >>>> >>> >>>> https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/%E3%80%8C%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%A8%AE%E5%88%A5%E3%80%8D >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Fernando Trebien >>> >>>> +55 (51) 99962-5409 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> "Nullius in verba." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> talk mailing list >>> >>>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> talk mailing list >>> >>> talk@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> >>> >>> >> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > talk mailing list >>> > talk@openstreetmap.org >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fernando Trebien >>> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >>> >>> "Nullius in verba." >> >> > > > > -- > Fernando Trebien > +55 (51) 9962-5409 > > "Nullius in verba." -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "Nullius in verba." _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
