Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson  writes:

> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the
> super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
> free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
> minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
> single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.

I don't see it as necessary to define non-divided-highway as conflicting
or not.  In theory, people stay on their side of the yellow line, and it
isn't, but in practice, they cross sometimes.  The point of divided is
of course that they can't cross.  And it leads to needing a 2nd lane for
passing.


I find the notion of super-2 as motorway to be a very minority opinion.
Until Richie supported that position, I would not have expected anyone
to argue that, and I have not seen anyone else take that position.

We do have debates about how far along the primary-motorway continuum a
road has to be in order to be tagged as trunk, and I think that's where
there's a fair bit of fuzz (how many driveways, distance between
intersections, etc. -- e.g., 1/10 miles ok, 10/mile not, and it's hard
somewhere in between).



Does anybody else think that a non-divided highway with one lane in each
direction, even if controlled access, should be tagged motorway rather
than trunk?


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Mark Bradley]

> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:59:40 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org>
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Message-ID:
>g...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
> > <richiekenned...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full
> > > NE2
> > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is
> > > properly tagged as motorway.
> >
> > Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
> >
> 
> I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a 
> controlled
> access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both 
> directions,
> typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances 
> to
> facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas).
> 
> My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
> > is
> > grade separated.
> >
> 
> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the 
> super-two
> debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, 
> controlled access,
> and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited
> access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more
> characteristic of trunks to me.
> 
> 
> > I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
> > at-grade opposing traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and
> > Rutland, Vermont.
> > Access is fully controlled, but there is no grade separation between
> > opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on steep grades, but
> > passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and level
> > sections.)
> >
> 
> I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly 
> because
> a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 
> km of
> motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few similar 
> situations with
> driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into 
> bona-fide
> interstates in Utah.  And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through 
> the
> drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's 
> entire three state
> run.  So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made 
> to
> ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point 
> couldn't be
> properly eliminated.
> 
> I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
> > particular
> > fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
> > tagging seen in
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
> > nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
> > you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that
> > you can put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about
> > placing a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no
> > useful information to a driver.
> >
> 
> It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
> > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow
> > shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed
> > limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be
> > if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway
> > encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is
> > not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade.
> >
> 
> This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in 
> Vancouver, WA;
> and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for 
> that
> whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and
> abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate 
> intersections at
> 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any 
> part of that
> a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it 
> does
> significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally 
> opposite what
> you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short).
> 
> Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but 
> not

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Martijn van Exel]

Thanks all for your input. With this advice in mind, and my own thinking /
opinion, I wrote the a diary entry which I hope will spark further debate
:) https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/42450

Best
Martijn

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
>>  wrote:
>> > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
>> > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
>> > tagged as motorway.
>>
>> Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
>>
>
> I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a
> controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway
> operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be
> additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at
> toll plazas).
>
> My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
>> is
>> grade separated.
>>
>
> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on
> the super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
> free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
> minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
> single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.
>
>
>> I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
>> at-grade opposing
>> traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
>> Access is fully controlled, but there is
>> no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
>> steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight
>> and
>> level sections.)
>>
>
> I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head,
> mostly because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade
> out of over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's
> a few similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor
> road going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah.  And of course, the
> traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the
> only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run.  So there
> is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure
> traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't
> be properly eliminated.
>
> I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
>> particular
>> fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
>> tagging seen
>> in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
>> nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
>> you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you
>> can
>> put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
>> a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
>> information to a driver.
>>
>
> It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is
>> a
>> motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders
>> (not
>> necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
>> in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
>> roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
>> and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to
>> drivers
>> of a downgrade.
>>
>
> This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in
> Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really
> should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade
> separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after
> the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade
> separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until
> something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does
> significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally
> opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so
> short).
>
> Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard,
> but not quite a freeway.
>
> ___
> 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] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
>  wrote:
> > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> > tagged as motorway.
>
> Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
>

I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a
controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway
operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be
additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at
toll plazas).

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
> is
> grade separated.
>

Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the
super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.


> I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
> at-grade opposing
> traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
> Access is fully controlled, but there is
> no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
> steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight
> and
> level sections.)
>

I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly
because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of
over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few
similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor road
going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah.  And of course, the
traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the
only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run.  So there
is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure
traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't
be properly eliminated.

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
> particular
> fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
> tagging seen
> in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
> nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
> you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
> put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
> a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
> information to a driver.
>

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
> motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders
> (not
> necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
> in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
> roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
> and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
> of a downgrade.
>

This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in
Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really
should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade
separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after
the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade
separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until
something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does
significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally
opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so
short).

Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard,
but not quite a freeway.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
 wrote:
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.

Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic is
grade separated.

I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
at-grade opposing
traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
Access is fully controlled, but there is
no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and
level sections.)

And I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has at-grade
crossing traffic. (Example: Taconic Parkway east of the Hudson in
eastern New York.
Dual-carriageway for the entire length, and all crossings with major roads are
elevated, but there are occasional minor roads and driveways that
cross at grade.)

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this particular
fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
tagging seen
in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
information to a driver.

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders (not
necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
of a downgrade.

It would bother me a little to have either of these roads labeled
'primary'. It would bother me a lot more to have either one labeled
'motorway'. And the current tagging of Taconic Parkway offers the
worst of both worlds.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Richie Kennedy]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:

> So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was
> NE2.

In this group, I find your opinion to be strongly expressed; however,
I do not find consensus to be clear and convincing. OTOH, in the
AARoads forum, I would argue the consensus opinion would be clear and
convincing in favor of my position.

> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.

OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.

Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
changes to the map.

I will make an effort to explain my opinion this weekend. I do need
time to collect my thoughts and put them to a keyboard.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richie Kennedy 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
> >
> > I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
> > characteristics:
> >
> >   divided
> >   >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
> >   limited access
> >
> > If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
> > there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
> > those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
> > it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)
> >
>
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.


So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was
NE2.


> I will also share publically what I have already
> shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled
> access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an
> invitation to an edit war.
>

That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Richie Kennedy]

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel  wrote:
>
> I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
> characteristics:
>
>   divided
>   >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
>   limited access
>
> If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
> there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
> those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
> it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)
>

Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
tagged as motorway. I will also share publically what I have already
shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled
access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an
invitation to an edit war.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

[Greg Troxel]

Richie Kennedy  writes:

> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, a single
>> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only
>> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma).  Essentially, almost a motorway
>> but not quite there.
>
> I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully
> controlled  access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead
> of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the
> primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification.

I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
characteristics:

  divided
  >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
  limited access

If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)



To answer Martijn's question, I also agree with Paul that "trunk" is
something that has a substantial part of the feel of a motorway.  It
might be only one lane in each direction (in NE we do not use the term
super two), it might not be really divided, and it might have occasional
driveways (at most one every quarter mile on average?)  or at-grade
intersections with lights every few miles.

We should realize that the current tags are the result of a long
historical process, including a few mappers that had a minority few that
there should be more higher-classification roads, and did massive
amounts of armchair retagging.


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

[Talk-us] weeklyOSM #376 2017-09-26-2017-10-02

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 376,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/9517/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who?: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us