[Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington.  This is a surface
expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently has a
mix of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges.  It appears there
is a small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start an edit
war regarding this issue.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] TIGER tracing layer updated to 2015 release

[Martijn van Exel]

Yay! The eye of the TIGER! Thanks Eric!
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 8:55 PM Nick Hocking  wrote:

> Yes, many thanks Eric,
>
> This facility will result in significant improvements to the US OSM data.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Nick
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification creep
as well.  I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire length of KS 7
from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and creep it upwards.  I'm
not really seeing a significant difference in characteristic in the WA 500
example or the KS 7 example from the 70 MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75
between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK.  All four are surface freeways with
regular intersections.  This one doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you think
you need a mix of motorway and trunk, it's probably just a trunk.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Richie Kennedy 
wrote:

> Revert request opposed. At best, there needs to be additional discussion
> within talk-us regarding this before DWG takes any action.
>
> I am not one of the participants that have edited WA 500 recently;
> however, those that have have brought this up on the AARoads forum. It is
> the opinion of the AA posters that significant segments of upgradable
> expressways that have been upgraded to fully controlled access should be
> tagged as motorway.
>
> I offer as an example this stretch of Kansas Highway 7 between Bonner
> Springs and Olathe:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33634149
>
> It is 4 lane divided from Lansing to Olathe, and KDOT’s future plan is to
> eventually bring the entire roadway up to freeway standards. I am also
> personally familiar with this roadway. I have verified and marked the
> controlled access segments of K-7 as motorway, and the partially controlled
> access roads as Trunk.
>
> Of note: the interchange at 83rd Street is marked as trunk. There is a
> at-grade intersection with a service road between the 83rd and Prairie Star
> Parkway interchanges. This intersection has, in fact, been overlooked by
> OSM mappers, myself included, in the past.
>
> Richie Kennedy
> McLouth, KS
>
> 
> From: Paul Johnson
> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2:36 AM
> To: d...@osmfoundation.org ; OpenStreetMap talk-us list
> Subject: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
>
> This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington.  This is a surface
> expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently has a
> mix of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges.  It appears there
> is a small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start an edit
> war regarding this issue.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Chris Lawrence]

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 3:37 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington.  This is a surface
> expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently has a
> mix of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges.  It appears there
> is a small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start an edit
> war regarding this issue.
>

I believe this reversion would be inappropriate and the tagging as-is
should stand. The portions of WA 500 tagged in OSM as "motorway" have full
control of access and meet the accepted tagging standards for motorway
status in North America, while the portion of the roadway lacking full
access control is properly tagged as "trunk."

Furthermore, the state department of transportation in question signs the
"highway=motorway" sections as a freeway using "FREEWAY ENTRANCE" signage
and their official state highway map also uses the line styling associated
with a freeway for these segments. This would at least create a strong
presumption that motorway is the correct classification for the portions of
the roadway so signed.


Chris

-- 
Christopher N. Lawrence 
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Richie Kennedy]

Revert request opposed. At best, there needs to be additional discussion within 
talk-us regarding this before DWG takes any action.

I am not one of the participants that have edited WA 500 recently; however, 
those that have have brought this up on the AARoads forum. It is the opinion of 
the AA posters that significant segments of upgradable expressways that have 
been upgraded to fully controlled access should be tagged as motorway.

I offer as an example this stretch of Kansas Highway 7 between Bonner Springs 
and Olathe:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33634149

It is 4 lane divided from Lansing to Olathe, and KDOT’s future plan is to 
eventually bring the entire roadway up to freeway standards. I am also 
personally familiar with this roadway. I have verified and marked the 
controlled access segments of K-7 as motorway, and the partially controlled 
access roads as Trunk.

Of note: the interchange at 83rd Street is marked as trunk. There is a at-grade 
intersection with a service road between the 83rd and Prairie Star Parkway 
interchanges. This intersection has, in fact, been overlooked by OSM mappers, 
myself included, in the past. 

Richie Kennedy
McLouth, KS


From: Paul Johnson 
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2:36 AM
To: d...@osmfoundation.org ; OpenStreetMap talk-us list 
Subject: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington.  This is a surface 
expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently has a mix 
of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges.  It appears there is a 
small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start an edit war 
regarding this issue.___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Richard Welty]

On 9/2/15 12:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification
> creep as well.  I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire
> length of KS 7 from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and
> creep it upwards.  I'm not really seeing a significant difference in
> characteristic in the WA 500 example or the KS 7 example from the 70
> MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75 between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK. 
> All four are surface freeways with regular intersections.  This one
> doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you think you need a mix of motorway and
> trunk, it's probably just a trunk.
>
it's a grey area, and i think anyone getting into an edit war over it
probably
needs to chill out a bit.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Richie Kennedy]

[Removing DWG from this reply]

As Richard W indicated, and I agree, alternating sections of fully controlled 
and partially controlled access is a grey area, and thus is a judgment call. 
Both the WA 500 and K-7 examples are judgment calls made by people who have 
observation and knowledge of what’s going on “in the field.”___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Paul Johnson]

I'm not so familiar with the K7 example, but I am intimately, first-person
familiar with the WA 500 situation.  The breakdown from what I gather in
the changeset comments is the disconnect with how it functions on the
ground and a pretty crassly mindless "but the WSDOT says it's a freeway"
idea.  WSDOT calls a divided super 2 with no shoulder a freeway as well.
Caltrans calls a 4 lane undivided highway a freeway if it's got ramps, but
I'm not sure anybody would consider the broad scope of what some American
DOT's call a freeway to be the strict and only thing that makes it a
freeway in OSM terms.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Richie Kennedy 
wrote:

> [Removing DWG from this reply]
>
> As Richard W indicated, and I agree, alternating sections of fully
> controlled and partially controlled access is a grey area, and thus is a
> judgment call. Both the WA 500 and K-7 examples are judgment calls made by
> people who have observation and knowledge of what’s going on “in the field.”
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[newnumber2]

Seems the same situation exists with US 52 in south east Minnesota.  I often
do edits in this region and so often see US 52 and have edited it in the
past myself.  Some months ago I noticed that someone had changed all of the
Trunk segments to Motorway.  I didn't respond to this at the time.  I
thought it looked nicer that way vs having so many alternating green and
blue segments, but how it looks isn't what really matters, is it?  This post
about WA 500 prompted me to go back and look at US 52 again.  I see that
some of the segments that had been previously changed to Motorway were
reverted back to Trunk.

I viewed the history for one of these segments, way 299594397, and found
that the OSM mapper who changed it from Trunk to Motorway was ajhartig26 and
the mapper who reverted it back to Trunk was jumbanho.  However, further
north, north of Cannon Falls, many segments mistakenly upgraded to Motorway
by ajhartig26 have not been corrected back to Trunk.

All of that being said, I will add that I have noticed on the odd occasion
that I have edited in, or at least viewed the OSM map of, some places in
foreign countries, peculiar uses of the classifications, not limited to
Trunk vs Motorway, and this raised questions in my mind about the matter,
which is the main reason I didn't bother to re-edit those segments of US 52
that ajhartig26 had edited. 




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Request-revert-on-Changeset-33669446-tp5853774p5853859.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Nathan Mills]

I can't speak to this specific instance, but based on Paul's usual criteria, 
I'd take what he has to say on the topic with a grain of salt. I gave up trying 
to convince him OK11 between I-244 and US-75 in Tulsa should be tagged as a 
motorway a long time ago, even though it has zero at grade intersections.

I also think the LL Tisdale between downtown and Pine should be classified 
motorway, but that one is at least arguable to my mind since it is very short 
and has only three interchanges, one of which is directional.

On September 2, 2015 12:25:11 PM EDT, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>I'm kind of seeing that as abuse of classification and classification
>creep
>as well.  I'd probably have gone with trunk for the entire length of KS
>7
>from KS 32 to KS 10 rather than spin the wheel and creep it upwards. 
>I'm
>not really seeing a significant difference in characteristic in the WA
>500
>example or the KS 7 example from the 70 MPH sections of OK 33 or US 75
>between Tulsa and Bartlesville, OK.  All four are surface freeways with
>regular intersections.  This one doesn't "go to 11", folks; if you
>think
>you need a mix of motorway and trunk, it's probably just a trunk.
>
>On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Richie Kennedy
>
>wrote:
>
>> Revert request opposed. At best, there needs to be additional
>discussion
>> within talk-us regarding this before DWG takes any action.
>>
>> I am not one of the participants that have edited WA 500 recently;
>> however, those that have have brought this up on the AARoads forum.
>It is
>> the opinion of the AA posters that significant segments of upgradable
>> expressways that have been upgraded to fully controlled access should
>be
>> tagged as motorway.
>>
>> I offer as an example this stretch of Kansas Highway 7 between Bonner
>> Springs and Olathe:
>>
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33634149
>>
>> It is 4 lane divided from Lansing to Olathe, and KDOT’s future plan
>is to
>> eventually bring the entire roadway up to freeway standards. I am
>also
>> personally familiar with this roadway. I have verified and marked the
>> controlled access segments of K-7 as motorway, and the partially
>controlled
>> access roads as Trunk.
>>
>> Of note: the interchange at 83rd Street is marked as trunk. There is
>a
>> at-grade intersection with a service road between the 83rd and
>Prairie Star
>> Parkway interchanges. This intersection has, in fact, been overlooked
>by
>> OSM mappers, myself included, in the past.
>>
>> Richie Kennedy
>> McLouth, KS
>>
>> 
>> From: Paul Johnson
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 2:36 AM
>> To: d...@osmfoundation.org ; OpenStreetMap talk-us list
>> Subject: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446
>>
>> This is regarding WA 500 in Vancouver, Washington.  This is a surface
>> expressway that will be later upgraded to a motorway, but currently
>has a
>> mix of surface intersections and ramp style interchanges.  It appears
>there
>> is a small but vocal minority of people who are attempting to start
>an edit
>> war regarding this issue.
>>
>
>
>
>
>___
>Talk-us mailing list
>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Request revert on Changeset #33669446

[Tod Fitch]

It is my understanding that when you see a CalTrans “Begin Freeway” sign it is 
indicating the section ahead is free of cross traffic (no intersections without 
grade separation and on/off ramps). That is, freeway implies limited access. 
And when you see a “End Freeway” sign there will be possible cross traffic 
ahead. Driving south on US 101 from Salinas there are numerous end/begin 
freeway signs bracketing each area with possible cross traffic (often service 
roads to farms that you’d never really notice without the help of those end 
freeway signs). Last I checked, that section of US101 is largely tagged as 
trunk which makes sense to me even though when driving it you are inclined to 
think of it as a freeway.

I believe that as long as there is at least a solid barrier between opposing 
traffic and access is limited to slip/link/ramp ways then that section is 
classified as a freeway by CalTrans.

On the other hand, there is a nearly 40 mile sections of CA152 between Casa De 
Fruita and I-5 which at either end have miles of limited access but which I 
think are offically non-freeway (tagged as trunk in OSM). So it could be that 
the length of the limited access section is taken into consideration by 
CalTrans when deciding to put up a “begin freeway” sign.

Cheers,
Tod

> On Sep 2, 2015, at 3:30 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> . . .   Caltrans calls a 4 lane undivided highway a freeway if it's got 
> ramps, but I'm not sure anybody would consider the broad scope of what some 
> American DOT's call a freeway to be the strict and only thing that makes it a 
> freeway in OSM terms.
> 


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us