Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

Eric H. Christensen wrote: > The routing engine should be able to take into account > the road surface It can and often does. Your problem there is that only 2% of highway= ways in the US are explicitly tagged with surface; probably only 30% are implicitly tagged; and sometimes the implicit

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, > tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway, > major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with > Texas and Missouri and their

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote: > I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value > to the U.S. map, Eric. > We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to > envisage taking some away. > Not saying we should abolish

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N wrote: > On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as > > primary doesn???t make any sense; > > The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes > sense. > >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary

I now reiterate the fundamental struggle in this discussion (which can be summed up as "both"): highway=trunk is another level of granularity (above primary) to describe "high performance OR high importance roads" (emphasis mine). Additionally, (from the US-specific definition from our wiki):

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:19 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to > the U.S. map, Eric. > We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to the U.S. map, Eric. We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to envisage taking some away. Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd consider as one outcome.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

I personally dislike "trunk". Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to interpretation (and argument). It doesn't really add anything to the information on the map, IMO. A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has. Maybe if the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as primary doesn???t make any sense; The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes sense. Some massive changes such as in

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

t: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary, Paul Johnson writes: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote: > >> >>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from >> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a >> coher

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

Paul Johnson writes: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote: > >> >>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from >> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a >> coherent network of interconnected roads. > > In which case, rendering

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote: > >I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from > 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a > coherent network of interconnected roads. In which case, rendering based on network on the route

[Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a coherent network of interconnected roads. On the other side, there is the group that prefers the road be classed according to its regional

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Hi folks, This conversation is over. If we can't have a conversation about highway tagging without making personal attacks, then we can't have the conversation. Please work harder to stay on topic, have empathy towards your fellow mapper, and have constructive conversations. The mailing list is

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has said the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The debate is entirely about where the classification change takes place. There are several instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Links please? On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:06 PM Paul Johnson > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > >> You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're >> saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against >> federal guidelines is if

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Sure thing, go back to about the last year of his edits. On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:06 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the > way you're describing? > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're > saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against > federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue > thru the at

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the way you're describing? On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas wrote: > >> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the >> posters both in the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that! I'm really getting

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas wrote: > As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the > posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples > of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible > change in road

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM Evin Fairchild wrote: > Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make > us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things. > There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all > want the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM Adam Franco wrote: > I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway > (or even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far > enough beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are > the same as the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things. There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first at

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway (or even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far enough beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are the same as the rest of the motorway, the roadway is functionally a motorway. I

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Unsubscribe On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 6:18 PM Paul Johnson Can I get some voice of reason in > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426? There seems to be > quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are > trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections. I honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this distinction. On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco wrote: > On Sun, Dec 2,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel wrote: > >> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the >> six or so people on that changeset 64919426 >> > > Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel wrote: > On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel wrote: > >> Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though? >> > > No, I don't think so. It's at least not a freeway

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

> On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel > wrote: > Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though? > > No, I don't think so. It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the > side

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel wrote: > Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though? > No, I don't think so. It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the side heading towards the intersection. > What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:01 PM wrote: > [forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error] > > -Original Message- > From: Richie Kennedy > Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM > To: Paul Johnson > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway > > >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error] -Original Message- From: Richie Kennedy Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM To: Paul Johnson Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > Single carriage

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

"Tagging freeway ending/beginnings with this scheme is definitely not standard practice in the US" By "this scheme," do you mean motorway up to intersection or motorway only up to last ramp merge? The former is almost everywhere in the US and I very rarely see the latter. Even after browsing the

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

> Can I get some voice of reason in > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426? There seems to be quite > a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to > propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is > obviously incorrect. I know I'm

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

I'm largely in agreement and this seems like how it's been done in practice. Would also apply to WA 500 (which also should be a trunk east of I 205, if not at least 112th/Gher; with argument supporting 205 being that 112th/Gher is largely only used by way of it's I 205 North exit and supporting

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Bryan Housel writes: > Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though? Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway. The basic issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though? What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange just looks weird. Sorry, but I have to disagree, and would leave it as a motorway up to Gilcrease, then trunk beyond that point. For comparison, our

[Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

Can I get some voice of reason in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426? There seems to be quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is obviously incorrect.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Okay folks. Coming back from not even 48 hours camping and this thread has exploded. I don't think it benefits anyone to continue in this way. Valuable insights get lost in the sheer volume of email; arguments are being repeated. I am dedicating the next Many Mappy Minutes (our monthly-ish online

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary. Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Yes, on more than one occasion back in the mists of time before armchair mappers had spread the lanes and other condition tags widely I found some pretty shitty US highways labeled as trunk, not because they are better roads, but because they happen to be long distance through routes. US412

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Bradley White wrote: > The UK/Canada system and the central Europe system both adopt > the tag in a way that makes sense for the road network they > have. We are trying to shoehorn the central European tagging > system into our country when, to me, it makes more sense to > use the UK/Canada

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:40:16 -0700 Bradley White wrote: > If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag > fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, > why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Not entirely a bad idea, but runs fundamentally in to the same issue this thread is about, if not moreso. FM 2161 would wind up as a more significant road than OR 22 in such a scenario. Never mind that OR 22 on the west side of Salem, OR is a major 50 MPH expressway going directly to the core of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms? >On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying to > document how things are on the ground or how things are actually > connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway and

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

You clearly haven't driven on US 97. It's a fairly busy road with a good amount of truck traffic and lots of little towns along it. That was my experience when I drove it. It goes thru central Oregon, which is arid, but not totally desolate. There was PLENTY of cars going in the other direction.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:42 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > Hi everyone, > > It sounds like this thread isn't really going anywhere. Since email > threads like this tend to be a terrible way to have intense conversation, I > would encourage you all to talk in real time on IRC, Slack,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route > between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them? These > important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary. >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Hi everyone, It sounds like this thread isn't really going anywhere. Since email threads like this tend to be a terrible way to have intense conversation, I would encourage you all to talk in real time on IRC, Slack, or a video chat of some sort. Maybe Martijn could set up a Hangout? -Ian On

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

I think primary ought to be used for major state routes and minor US routes, secondary for minor state routes, and tertiary for collector arterials. On Oct 14, 2017 9:23 PM, "Nathan Mills" wrote: > I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

I guess my question is why primary isn't good enough for the primary route between places that don't have higher grade roads connecting them? These important mostly two lane roads are perfectly fine as primary. In many cases primary routes happen to be divided, but in many cases they aren't.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > That can be easily rectified by tagging trunk roads in accordance with the > wiki. > Exactly backwards, since the wiki is supposed to document how things are already consumed, not the other way around. Which wasn't

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

That can be easily rectified by tagging trunk roads in accordance with the wiki. They should be the most important non-motorway roads. Tagging most US highways as such fulfills this. On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 8:03 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM,

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

I'm amazed that NE2's definition hasn't been removed after 7 years. It must not have been that controversial or else someone would have removed it. Seems like you just don't agree with his opinion and just really have some personal problems with that guy. I know he engaged in some really dumb

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > > Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s. I really > think people are trying to overthink this a bit; being a little

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild > wrote: > >> >> >> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson"

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild > wrote: > >> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker"

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson" wrote: On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" > wrote: > > Hi, > > it looks to me that this discussion is going in

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited > access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard > shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit. > To expand on this, it's pretty

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" > wrote: > > Hi, > > it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward > at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" wrote: Hi, it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what it

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Hi, it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't worry to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

The linked example is an OSM screenshot? So yes, especially if it is strictly adhering to trunk==expressway, then they will be explicitly marked. This is circular. USGS maps emphasize roads when they are multi-lane highways that aren't freeways, not when they are expressways. Not every multi-lane

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Bradley White wrote: > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway > and > > has had both of those clearly different than US and

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

As I said previously, and I think it bears repeating, it's very easy to tell if a trunk is divided or undivided when you look at US or Canada at zoom 5 on the standard layer. Divided trunks show up as a thicker line than undivided trunks. Also worth noting that Google maps doesn't display divided

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > Road maps in the US have long differentiated between freeway/expressway and > has had both of those clearly different than US and state highways we'd be > tagging as primary. Map users expect to see expressways shown

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

I think I've said this before, but I'm mostly in agreement with Paul's position. Trunk should apply to divided, limited but not controlled access highways. Other uses should be exceptions in the same vein as rural interstates with a few at-grade intersections keeping their motorway status.

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

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/

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> 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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

The concept of expressway is not as well known as a freeway. Many people, especially in places like NYC, might consider expressways and freeways to be interchangeable terms. Heck, even in Tulsa, you have the Broken Arrow Expressway, and the Sand Springs Expressway, which, despite being called

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads > as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart > from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Message: 4 > > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 > > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Message-ID: > >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

;> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 >> > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> >> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> >> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk >> > Message-ID: >> >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

samundi.org> > > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Message-ID: > >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > Message-ID: >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: > > Soon after I first joined OSM, NE2 changed a US highway near me from > primary to trunk which another user quickly reverted, but I actually agreed > with the change to trunk. The road I'm referring to, BTW, is US 2 in

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Oct 13, 2017 7:11 PM, "Bradley White" wrote: Lots of words ahead, you have been warned... I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what "kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The "highway" key is for importance, or, how

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Bradley White wrote: > > This situation is NOT the case for the majority of the US, and trying > to use this definition is what has been leading to unresolved > confusion about the purpose of the trunk tag. MUTCD gives a definition > of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Lots of words ahead, you have been warned... I disagree with trying to use the "highway=" tag to describe what "kind" of road a given way is in the US, except for freeways. The "highway" key is for importance, or, how prominently a road should show on the map. We have other tags to describe

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

> Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:59:11 -0600 > From: Martijn van Exel <m...@rtijn.org> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk > > Hi all, > > I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me > a while to read through all the diary comments + what is

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > Agreed mostly. But I don't see primary/secondary as having anything to > do with physical; we more or less defined that as US vs state long ago. If you read the description on the Wiki, we defined no such thing, we merely

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > > I don't really have a stake in the outcome of this discussion but wish to > again point out that Alaska is a state where "trunk" has been used to > designate highways that are ordinarily classified as primary but

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road > > network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

>I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road >network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway that >is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key >interconnecting road, and it's squarely "primary". Most of US 20 is >like this, as

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:30 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > I don't think "important connecting role in the long distance road > network" should have anything to do with it. A regular US highway that > is not divided, grade-separated, mostly limited access is still a key >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Martijn van Exel writes: > In the mean time, I decided to test some of the ideas posted here on a real > case: The part of Michigan SR 10 northwest of the I-696 interchange: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/252973#map=13/42.5132/-83.3168 > > Since 1) this road does not

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On 10/13/17 1:59 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > Hi all, > > I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just > taken me a while to read through all the diary comments + what is > being said in this thread. I intend to follow up with another diary > post where I try to collect this

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Hi all, I haven't abandoned this thread or thinking about it. It has just taken me a while to read through all the diary comments + what is being said in this thread. I intend to follow up with another diary post where I try to collect this smart crowd's thoughts and suggestions, but it will

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 5:33 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Kevin Kenny writes: > > > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were > > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character > > and regional importance, and

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Kevin Kenny writes: > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character > and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve > different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On October 8, 2017 3:46:07 PM EDT, Paul Johnson wrote: > >County and rural roads, particularly of the 3- and 4-digit National >Forest >routes and...really pick an unpaved section line almost anywhere in an >area >bounded by the Rocky Mountain frontier, the Appalachian

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote: > I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved > someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other > contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Nathan Mills wrote: > Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It > isn't part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway. > Fair enough. It does retain a lot of it's features from when it was the Riverside

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Riverside in Tulsa is fairly clearly a primary for most of its length. It isn't part of a larger trunk route nor is it an expressway. Personally, I think of trunk as more like motorway than like the other highway values. Motorway is clearly used only for controlled access freeways (excepting

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:25 AM, Shawn K. Quinn wrote: > On 10/05/2017 05:30 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote: > > Question for you all: > > > > What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than > primaries? > > > > To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because

  1   2   >