Re: [Talk-us] Talk-us Digest, Vol 141, Issue 22
> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:09:25 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > > sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > > standards. > > > > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways. Alaska does have gravel state highways, but the main road between Fairbanks and Anchorage (Parks Highway, AK 3) is entirely paved, as is the entirety of the Alaska Highway itself and the roads connecting it to Fairbanks and Anchorage. So the statement "the main highways between cities are paved" is still true. That said, no, Alaska is not the last state to still have gravel state highways. Vermont still has a couple (part of VT 121 is gravel, for example). Montana has quite a few, including one section of a primary route (MT 38 over Skalkaho Pass). Utah has at least one (UT 261's Moki Dugway segment). Further examples likely exist. As for the original subject that spurred this discussion... I agree with the general sentiment that for any classifications other than motorway (which for US purposes is treated as being equal to "freeway"), the road's network importance matters more than its geometry. It may be fine for some sections of former US 66 to be tagged as trunk if they still function as major through roads, but since most sections do not function as such their classification should be lowered to the level appropriate for the given segment. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Anonymous comments on notes now disabled
Such portals are ours (OSM's) to manage as we see fit. "After two years of discussions" sounds like consensus. Defining something as "rarely useful" (then agreeing upon that) seems a helpful approach. Looks like a good call, Frederik. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
> Also language introduced by NE2 when he changed the wiki to justify his own > national mass edit on the US highways. If all this language was added unilaterally by NE2, can we find the specific wiki edits that they made and roll them back? I'm on the same page with Steve that describing how tagging currently *is* used and debating over how tagging might be better used, should be kept separate. > Feels like conflating expressways and primaries. Certainly, relative to current tag usage, which is why I'm debating current tag usage. If 'highway' is supposed to, fundamentally, denote importance (Proposed_features/Highway_key_voting_importance), it seems to me that there's a big difference in importance between a highway that connects population centers of ca. 10,000+ (current primary usage as described in United_States_roads_tagging), and a highway connecting population centers of ca. 100,000+ (Vegas to Boise, Reno to Redding, etc), regardless of the physical condition of the road. Conversely, it seems strange to use such a tag as high in the hierarchy as 'trunk' for a fairly minor state highway that is otherwise 'secondary', simply because the highway turns divided. I can sympathize with many mappers, especially newer ones, not understanding what to do with 'trunk'. It is probable that this 'strangeness' is due to rendering choices in osm-carto, but it's been made clear that country-specific rendering is logistically near-impossible and won't be happening. I've thought about putting together a US-specific style that uses highway ref as a factor in rendering, so that highways that are properly tagged per OSM standards show up as one might "expect" them to on a US map. But I certainly can't afford to host a tile server right now. I'd be much more on-board with the 'trunk' = 'expressway' thing (been halfway there for a bit) if the following happened: - Removal of "important highway where no motorway exists" or equivalent verbiage from wiki tagging guidelines. If this was added unilaterally by one editor, it should be removed regardless. - Rewriting 'trunk' section of US road tagging guidelines, with a section on understanding the concept of access control, and including multiple photographed examples of different kinds of expressways with descriptions. I'd be happy to help contribute to this. - Systematic review of 'primary' use in the US - if this is going to mean 'nationally important road', there shouldn't be things like nearly every state highway being tagged 'primary', or downtown areas filled to the brim with 'primary' (Houston and LA as particularly egregious examples), or 'primary' roads that almost exactly parallel an interstate (the interstate is the primary road!). I have been working on this in California for a while, but it usually quite time-consuming - many roads have been inappropriately bumped up so they cut through the TIGER mess, when in reality it's the TIGER mess that needs to be cleaned up first. > Feels like conflating expressways and primaries. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
Vermont has at least two state highways that are partially or entirely gravel, too. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:20 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > * Paul Johnson [190829 14:09]: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > >> the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > >> reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > >> sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > >> standards. > > > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > > highways. > > Many (if not most) of Montanas "Secondary State Highways" are gravel. > > Wolfgang > ( lyx @ OSM ) > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
* Paul Johnson [190829 14:09]: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: >> That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska >> the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a >> reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes >> sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German >> standards. > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways. Many (if not most) of Montanas "Secondary State Highways" are gravel. Wolfgang ( lyx @ OSM ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:11 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways. Not just southern Alaska. It's kind of hard to pave over permafrost, so there's a lot of gravel Up North as well. Used to be that most of the AlCan Highway was gravel. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > standards. > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state highways. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:41 PM Bradley White wrote: > > For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > > upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic > > leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. > > I did this a year or two ago, then changed it back following the > previous time this discussion came up last year. Someone else has > recently changed it back to trunk in its entirety as you describe (as > well as US 395, CA 70); I explained in a changeset comment that the > "major intercity highway where no motorway exists" definition (per > Highway:International_equivalence) is contentious and not commonly > used, but that I have no plans on reverting their changes. > Also language introduced by NE2 when he changed the wiki to justify his own national mass edit on the US highways. > Caltrans doesn't appear to have "divided" as a requirement for an > expressway build, or even necessarily a freeway (See:(California) > State Highway Map 2005; David Rumsey Map Collection) - these terms are > used to describe the level of access control on a given highway. US > 101 through Redwood Ntl Park is signed with "Freeway Entrance" and is > fully access controlled, but is an undivided 4-lane road. Many 2-lane, > undivided roads are considered expressways in California, for example: > - Vasco Road connecting Antioch & Livermore > - Portions of CA 4 west of Angels Camp > - CA 108 east of Sonora (fully access controlled 2-lane road) > > Once you know what to look for - reduced access to adjacent > properties, smoothed road geometry (esp. when bypassing old highways), > hard shoulders, usually 65 mph - they aren't too hard to differentiate > from conventional 2-lane highways with no access control. Where these > are obvious I generally tag them as trunk roads as opposed to primary. > Specifically in the case of CA 108, I reject that a fully access > controlled two-lane road is anything less than a trunk, if we have > decided to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway'. California doesn't use > AASHTO definitions so I won't either. > I think that generally fits what would be tagged as a trunk as well (fully access controlled but single carriageway and AASHTO's definition). > Reno, NV has a couple urban arteries that straddle the divide between > trunk and primary (specifically: McCarran Blvd/NV 659, Pyramid Hwy/NV > 445 north of McCarran, Veterans Pkwy, foothills portion of Mt. Rose > Hwy/NV 431). These roads carry traffic at speeds higher than other > nearby arteries (45-55 mph as opposed to 40 mph). They are built to > the highest level of access control specified by Washoe RTC - > generally no direct access to properties, except for retail/commercial > areas (where access is quite frequent), or rural areas where no other > roads provide access to properties. They range from undivided w/ > center turn lane to divided with concrete jersey barriers & headlight > blinders (similar to a freeway). The majority of these roadways have > bike lanes, and many have sidewalks. They are quite similar to San > Jose's expressway system, except for a lack of grade-separated > interchanges. Are these primary, or trunk? I don't really know. They > currently sit at an awkward mix of trunk and primary depending on how > definitively myself and others think they are "expressways" or not. > I'd probably consider those as expressways. > I don't deny that "divided highway with partial control of access" is > a rigorous definition, with which it is certainly possible to tag > unambiguously with. I just question whether it is a good choice in the > US to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway' in the same way that 'motorway' > means 'freeway', when the US has a formal freeway system, but lacks a > formal expressway system. Most other countries that also lack a formal > expressway system do not use the trunk/expressway definition (UK, > Canada, etc). In my area, sticking strictly to "divided highway with > partial control of access" means very few highways at all will see > 'trunk' tagging. Certainly, this reflects what's on the ground here if > we use this definition - but why use a definition that either has to > be used ambiguously or seldom at all? > > I support orthogonalizing expressways & trunk by using > 'expressway=yes/no' for access control (maybe > access_control=full/partial/no?), 'highway=trunk' to mean non-freeway > road with national-level importance, and using 'oneway' to denote > whether a highway is divided or not. Then let rendering decide how to > draw the road from there. Want to see formal expressways drawn > separately? 'Expressway=yes' & 'oneway=yes'. Want a more general view > of the most important US highways? 'Highway=trunk'. > Feels like conflating expressways and primaries. ___
