Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems reasonable. Major Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, I find. Type 1 trunks rely on restricted access and the main highways in cities are generally limited in this manner. Likewise, these restrictions lift, in a sense, outside the city where they switch to connecting major settlements together (Type 2). That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic point, the central connection between major settlements, especially across provincial borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH to go to other major settlements would need to be at the same class as the TCH, if they are multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. Or are we to designate them down a classification and leave Trunk for the TCH alone? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson andersontris...@hotmail.com wrote: So it seems like we're coming to some agreement. The current Canadian definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with something else that is consistent with the rest of the world. Once we find this new definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated. I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how trunk tags are used. Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but I think I can hammer out a more specific description. There are two types of roads with are both usually tagged highway=trunk: (1) Limited access highways. This is a physical description for a road that has some of the characteristics of a motorway. They are often dual carriageways of fairly high speed. (2) Highways connecting distant population centres. This is a functional description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks travelling long distances or between major cities. Although usually two lanes, in more remote areas these roads may have very light traffic, be unpaved, or be slow. In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern United States, all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance travel is generally done on their dense networks of motorways. Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in much of the developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because type (1) doesn't exist. The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is Britain (actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace of the trunk. The designation there is used quite liberally, including even short roads connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's city streets. Just look at England at zoom level 5 and observe how unusually green it is. I suggest using the international model, with types (1) and (2) above being tagged as trunks in Canada. This won't change much as it largely coincides with how roads are already tagged. The wiki pages can be updated accordingly then we can look at specific roads in BC and Québec! Any objections? From: jfd...@hotmail.com To: scr...@gmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding Thank Russel, Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about trunks) before I found the Canadian definition was referring to the mentioned document. Cheers, Daniel -Original Message- From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scr...@gmail.com] Sent: July-23-15 08:44 To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding The definition of ‘trunk’ is a difficult one, if based on the UK understanding. Like its unwritten constitution, trunk roads in the UK are more on a know it when I see it basis. Pretty much the only definitions I can think of that would be generally applicable are: * a trunk road goes from one city/town to another. * no parking at the side of the road. * something above the urban speed limit applies (though there are often nasty brief exceptions, like a roughly 200m stretch of 30 mph that used to adorn the A80, dammit). A trunk road isn't always dual carriageway. It can have traffic lights, roundabouts or (rare, in the UK) stop signs. Depending on its age, it may bypass towns and villages. Older trunk roads may also have all the usual roads entering it, while newer ones are likely to have on-ramps. In summary, the UK definition is so riddled with unwritten exceptions that trying to apply it rigorously in even one province in Canada will be frustrating. And no matter what you do, you'll always get some rogue user that comes along and adds their own tagging. It's a sair fecht … cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ___ Talk-ca mailing list
Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data Imports
For example Hamilton's open data license (http://www2.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/C58984A4-FE11-40B9-A231-8572EB922AAA/0/OpenDataTermsAndConditions_Final.html) at first glance seems OK: Your Use of Data: The City of Hamilton grants you a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence to use the Data, including for commercial purposes, subject to the terms and conditions below. You acknowledge and agree that this Licence does not give you a copyright or other proprietary interest in the Data. You may copy, modify, publish, translate, adapt, distribute or otherwise use the Data in any medium, mode or format for any lawful purpose. When you use the Data, you must acknowledge the source of the Data by including the following attribution statement: “Contains public sector Data made available under the City of Hamilton’s Open Data Licence” But then it says: The City of Hamilton may, in its sole discretion, require you to remove the above attribution statement from your continued use of the Data. (Does this mean that Hamilton can revoke our use of the data for whatever reason it wants? Sounds unacceptable to me) And: You must ensure that your use of the Data does not breach or infringe any applicable laws. (So is OSM held responsible if someone breaks the law using OSM data derived from Hamilton Open Data?) And then everything is subject to the Acceptable Use Agreement at http://www.hamilton.ca/government-information/site-policies/acceptable-use-agreement. ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
“… [TCH] is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at its most basic point, the central connection between major settlements …” Interesting… it is type 2 definition proposed by Tristan but without the concept of distance. IMHO, It highlights the fact that, depending on how you define central connection, major settlements, or distant population centres, you may ends up with the Britain situation – or even worst. Combining two very different objectives (types 1 and 2) in one definition leads to confusion. What about a rationale revolving around Type 1 definition but considering the TCH as a “special case” as suggested by Martin? - OSM road classes mostly aim toward Type 1 definition, so be it for trunks; - Since TCH could be consider as the only highway connecting most major population centres across the country, we could agree to tag it whether motorway or trunk depending on the infrastructure. There should then be no more confusion with this only one exception. However, we could also manage all type 2 definitions, such as the ones described in document (a) with relation:route (b) but it is a bit more complex and less visual when looking at Mapnik. Other thoughts, comments? Daniel a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes From: Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.mar...@gmail.com] Sent: July-24-15 07:08 To: Tristan Anderson Cc: Daniel Begin; Stewart C. Russell; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems reasonable. Major Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, I find. Type 1 trunks rely on restricted access and the main highways in cities are generally limited in this manner. Likewise, these restrictions lift, in a sense, outside the city where they switch to connecting major settlements together (Type 2). That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic point, the central connection between major settlements, especially across provincial borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH to go to other major settlements would need to be at the same class as the TCH, if they are multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. Or are we to designate them down a classification and leave Trunk for the TCH alone? On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson andersontris...@hotmail.com wrote: So it seems like we're coming to some agreement. The current Canadian definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with something else that is consistent with the rest of the world. Once we find this new definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated. I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how trunk tags are used. Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but I think I can hammer out a more specific description. There are two types of roads with are both usually tagged highway=trunk: (1) Limited access highways. This is a physical description for a road that has some of the characteristics of a motorway. They are often dual carriageways of fairly high speed. (2) Highways connecting distant population centres. This is a functional description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks travelling long distances or between major cities. Although usually two lanes, in more remote areas these roads may have very light traffic, be unpaved, or be slow. In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern United States, all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance travel is generally done on their dense networks of motorways. Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in much of the developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because type (1) doesn't exist. The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is Britain (actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace of the trunk. The designation there is used quite liberally, including even short roads connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's city streets. Just look at England at zoom level 5 and observe how unusually green it is. I suggest using the international model, with types (1) and (2) above being tagged as trunks in Canada. This won't change much as it largely coincides with how roads are already tagged. The wiki pages can be updated accordingly then we can look at specific roads in BC and Québec! Any objections? From: jfd...@hotmail.com To: scr...@gmail.com; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding Thank Russel, Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about trunks) before I found the Canadian definition was referring to the mentioned
Re: [Talk-ca] Open Data Imports
On 2015-07-23 11:54 PM, Andrew MacKinnon wrote: It might be helpful to look at http://openaddresses.io/ which is an project to aggregate address data from various open data portals. I'm a little confused by http://openaddresses.io's licensing: they claim CC0 but retain individual contributor licences. That seems to be getting collection/database rights exactly the wrong way round. Does anyone know which of these (and others) are compatible with the OSM license? Some of the licences are up on CLIPol http://clipol.org/, and you can compare them to OSM's. Usually they're not on the site, and they are all special roll-your-own versions inspired by the UK Open Data Licence. In theory, you can add licences to CLIPol, but it would take a careful legal eye to catch all of the terms. If a city caught the first open data wave and has a licence from ≤ 2011, it's highly likely that you can't use it with OSM. Toronto you can, because they told us we can. cheers, Stewart ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
