Re: [talk-ph] RFC - Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, names)

[Jherome Miguel]

Here is the map for the proposed reclassifications:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/philippines-proposed-road-classifications_570794
. Map is still being worked on; I have completed mapping the rationalized
trunk road network for North Luzon, including some ongoing bypass road
projects and some primary and secondary roads. All cities and large
municipalities (with populations of 100,000+) have been pinpointed for the
purpose of determining the best classification.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:50 PM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> I see your argument, considering the expressways are a separate network
> from national roads, nevertheless we should better rationalize the trunk
> road network in Cavite.
>
> So, continuing on, we still have the gap on Route 1 gap through Metro
> Manila. Route 1 abruptly ends at EDSA-Roxas Boulevard and begins again at
> Alabang, and it remains to be seen how will DPWH bridge it. What would you
> suggest to upgrade to trunk?
>
> - Option 1: (continuing from Roxas Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194, Seaside
> Drive-Quirino Ave), Quirino and Diego Cera avenues (Route 62), and
> Alabang-Zapote Road (Route 411, Zapote-Alabang)
> - Option 2: (continuing from toll-free Osmeña Highway) East and West
> Service Roads
> - Option 3: (continuing from Roxas Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194, Seaside
> Drive-Ninoy Aquino), Ninoy Aquino Avenue (Route 195), Dr. A. Santos
> Avenue/Sucat Road (Route 63), East Service Road
>
> If we’re to go with bridging the Route 1 gap, I would think it’s Option 1,
> considering that’s the historical route out of Manila before the
> expressways opened, though the roads are somewhat narrow and are mostly
> local streets.
>
> I’m currently creating a web map of the proposed classification using
> UMap, though I’m still in the process of pinpointing the cities and
> municipalities.
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:21 PM Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't see the logic of downgrading trunk roads merely because there is
>> a parallel expressway. Our expressways are toll=yes roads and if these
>> expressways did not exist, then these trunk roads would correctly be tagged
>> as highway=trunk. I think that we disregard the existence of
>> highway=motorway roads for the purposes of classifying the rest of the road
>> network. Many people for various reasons want to avoid going through toll
>> roads and having highway=trunk roads as an indicator of suitable alternate
>> routes is important.
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:51 AM Jherome Miguel 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Continuing on, I raised this unanswered question about downgrading
>>> trunks where significantly bypassed by a parallel expressway (unless it has
>>> a significant section resembling an expressway as in proposal). I thinking
>>> of doing that for these road segments currently tagged trunk.
>>>
>>> - National Highway/Maharlika Highway/Manila South Road (Route 1,
>>> Muntinlupa
>>> -Calamba-STAR
>>> Santo Tomas exit) — bypassed by SLEX
>>> - JP Laurel Highway/Manila-Batangas Road (Route 4, Santo Tomas-Batangas
>>> City) — bypassed by STAR Tollway
>>> - MacArthur Highway (Route 1, Caloocan-Tabang, Guiguinto) — bypassed by
>>> NLEX
>>> - Osmeña Highway (Route 145
>>> )
>>> and Quirino Avenue (Route 140, Roxas Boulevard
>>> -Osmeña
>>> Highway) — bypassed by Skyway
>>> — Olongapo-San Fernando-Gapan Road/Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Route 3,
>>> Dinalupihan
>>> 
>>> Junction-Olongapo) — bypassed by SCTEX
>>> — Manila North Road (Route 2
>>> ,
>>> TPLEX Urdaneta exit-Kennon Road)
>>>
>>> (for future downgrades, once new parallel expressway under construction
>>> opens. Might need some discussion)
>>>
>>> — Aguinaldo Highway (Route 62/419, Bacoor
>>> -Dasma-Tagaytay)
>>> — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in
>>> Cavite.
>>> — Antero Soriano Highway/Centennial Road/Tanza-Trece Martires Road
>>> (Route 64
>>> ,
>>> Kawit-Tanza-Trece Martires) — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also
>>> downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite.
>>> 
>>> — Governor’s Drive (Route 65, Dasma
>>> -Biñan)
>>> — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks
>>> in Cavite.
>>> — 

Re: [talk-ph] RFC - Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, names)

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

I don't see the logic of downgrading trunk roads merely because there is a
parallel expressway. Our expressways are toll=yes roads and if these
expressways did not exist, then these trunk roads would correctly be tagged
as highway=trunk. I think that we disregard the existence of
highway=motorway roads for the purposes of classifying the rest of the road
network. Many people for various reasons want to avoid going through toll
roads and having highway=trunk roads as an indicator of suitable alternate
routes is important.

On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:51 AM Jherome Miguel 
wrote:

> Continuing on, I raised this unanswered question about downgrading trunks
> where significantly bypassed by a parallel expressway (unless it has a
> significant section resembling an expressway as in proposal). I thinking of
> doing that for these road segments currently tagged trunk.
>
> - National Highway/Maharlika Highway/Manila South Road (Route 1,
> Muntinlupa-Calamba-STAR Santo Tomas exit) — bypassed by SLEX
> - JP Laurel Highway/Manila-Batangas Road (Route 4, Santo Tomas-Batangas
> City) — bypassed by STAR Tollway
> - MacArthur Highway (Route 1, Caloocan-Tabang, Guiguinto) — bypassed by
> NLEX
> - Osmeña Highway (Route 145) and Quirino Avenue (Route 140, Roxas
> Boulevard-Osmeña Highway) — bypassed by Skyway
> — Olongapo-San Fernando-Gapan Road/Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Route 3,
> Dinalupihan Junction-Olongapo) — bypassed by SCTEX
> — Manila North Road (Route 2, TPLEX Urdaneta exit-Kennon Road)
>
> (for future downgrades, once new parallel expressway under construction
> opens. Might need some discussion)
>
> — Aguinaldo Highway (Route 62/419, Bacoor-Dasma-Tagaytay) — to be bypassed
> by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite.
> — Antero Soriano Highway/Centennial Road/Tanza-Trece Martires Road (Route
> 64, Kawit-Tanza-Trece Martires) — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also
> downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite.
> — Governor’s Drive (Route 65, Dasma-Biñan) — to be bypassed by CALAX.
> Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite.
> — Tarlac-Santa Rosa Road (Route 58) — to be bypassed by CLLEX (downgrade
> to be done once whole Tarlac City-Cabanatuan route is opened)
>
> Beside that, I’ll prepare maps (for Luzon, Metro Manila, Panay, Negros,
> Cebu, Samar and Leyte, and Mindanao) of routes to be classified trunk
> using the proposed criteria. There is a significant need to rationalize the
> trunk networks, especially in the less populated islands or regions.
> From there, we go on to determine the primaries and so on. I’ll also post a 
> list
> of major roads and their proposed future classifications (to be divided by
> region and province) on the wiki. Any further comment or feedback is
> welcome here or on the wiki.
>
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:54 AM Jherome Miguel 
> wrote:
>
>> For names, I agree there is a problem. Posted road name can be
>> inconsistent across different jurisdictions or even within the same
>> jurisdiction. That’s the reason we need to review how we map street names
>> (we rely too much on road signs). There’s a lot of instances the road signs
>> omit suffixes (especially “Street/St”) while the addresses use the full
>> name. We seem to forget a road’s name= is also used for addr:street=.
>>
>> The main point behind the proposed guidelines is to better align PH
>> practice with global tagging practices. We have a road classification
>> system that  is too watered down and is somewhat only appropriate to urban
>> areas. Our practice on naming roads had rather preferred short names to
>> reduce clutter and deter mappers who abbreviate them, but that somewhat
>> raises issues about mapping for the renderer (whether to keep, abbreviate
>> or remove street name affixes is up to them), plus, we’ve got into the
>> problem of relying too much on street signs, forgetting some roads have no
>> names posted on any official road sign and the name verifiable from asking
>> locals or finding posted addresses, and addresses posted on business signs
>> (or even their ads, business cards and things) should be used as sources as
>> well.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:09 AM Michael Cole  wrote:
>>
>>> We have a problem with names even 1 way streets, real law vs locality.
>>> And i live in poblacion mkt, mmda break the actual law, who is correct? Do
>>> we take the word of corodiles over the country or.enforce the law and get
>>> people.arrested fined illegally?
>>>
>>> My 2 cents ..
>>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 1:23 PM Jherome Miguel, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hi all,

 After somewhat slow progress to gather ideas and feedback for a new
 road classification scheme, I finally decided to write the final version of
 the new tagging scheme at:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads
 (see “Classification” section)

 The proposal is planned to replace those at
 

[talk-ph] RFC - Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, names)

[Jherome Miguel]

Hi all,

After somewhat slow progress to gather ideas and feedback for a new road
classification scheme, I finally decided to write the final version of the
new tagging scheme at:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads
(see “Classification” section)

The proposal is planned to replace those at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions (sections,
“Roads”, “Names”)

*Why? *The existing road classification scheme since 2015 needs a major
rewrite since I’m seeing major problems with the tree analogy used to
justify the existing scheme. Why use primary for every road to each
municipality regardless of its population size (just because they’re a
branch or an alternate to a trunk)? Shouldn’t we use trunks only on the
most important highway links between the largest cities beside the
expressways? Many of our provinces lack secondaries in the rural area but
do have lots of tertiaries surrounded by trunk and primary roads (and a
total lack of secondary roads). Lots of Philippines mappers (including me)
ignore that bad scheme, which just came to effect without discussion or
consultation. It’s also time for us to take community population sizes as
well as designations in account when classifying roads.

Also, guidelines about road names are to be affected as well (following
latest discussion). This includes changes in the existing guideline to
prefer full names as used in addresses (since names posted in street signs
can be inconsistent). One open question is on how to name many of the major
rural roads without posted names (national roads aside, whose names, unless
the locally verifiable posted name is different, can be found from the DPWH
road database) until their actual names are verified. For me, it’s in the
form “- Road”, though I
also experimented with adding noname=yes instead of adding placeholder
names using the format mentioned above.

Any comments/suggestion/feedback on this are welcome here or on the
article’s talk page.

Thanks,
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph