Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 3:48 PM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 21. Dec 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental > > Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including > > Germany and France, chose to use highway=trunk as synonym for > > "motorroad" (somewhat similar to a U.S.A. "expressway"), with other > > major roads tagged as highway=primary. > > > actually not, the motorroad tag was introduced by the Germans (AFAIK) to > express a typical access situation on many trunks but also some primaries > (motorway like access), so that trunk (motorway like physical construction) > and access could be tagged orthogonally. There are also some trunks that > permit slower traffic in Germany. > I would also consider a "super two" or similar undivided design to be a trunk. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
Thank you for the correction. So highway=trunk in German is similar to expressway=yes in the USA? Joseph On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 6:49 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > sent from a phone > > > On 21. Dec 2019, at 01:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental > > Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including > > Germany and France, chose to use highway=trunk as synonym for > > "motorroad" (somewhat similar to a U.S.A. "expressway"), with other > > major roads tagged as highway=primary. > > > actually not, the motorroad tag was introduced by the Germans (AFAIK) to > express a typical access situation on many trunks but also some primaries > (motorway like access), so that trunk (motorway like physical construction) > and access could be tagged orthogonally. There are also some trunks that > permit slower traffic in Germany. > > Cheers Martin > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > tagg...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary
21 Dec 2019, 15:29 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: > * Mateusz Konieczny > >> 21 Dec 2019, 12:00 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: >> >>> I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within >>> a country and try to solve the problem of roads in low-zoom maps at >>> the rendering level, by modifying the list of displayed road classes >>> until a target density of displayed roads is reached. That might >>> become easier to do when we move to vector tiles. >>> >> Seems not doable with OSM data - this >> would require far more road classes >> than we use. >> > > Why would we need more road classes for that? This would only be an > issue if the difference between two "adjacent" classes would be so big > that you would jump from "almost none" to "to many to display" in one > step. > Exactly. There are many places where motorway and trunk is not enough (as trunks are not used for roads forming core network but for expressways). Adding also primary roads pushes it into unacceptable many roads forming blobs. >> lane and surface data is also almost >> certainly not helpful here even with full >> coverage >> >> And it would result in weird transitions >> between countries. >> > > Only if road density changes rapidly at the border, and then we would > just depict the weird transition that exists in reality. > In case of using regions not matching countries you will still have weird transitions on borders of regions. > I think it might be possible to upgrade the "minimum zoom level to > display" on a way if there are no already displayed ways in an area, > maybe only if it connects to an already displayed way (recursive). > That way we would boost the minimum zoom level of e.g. > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196509120 to zoom-level 11 or maybe > even 9, even with it being just a low quality dirt track going near an > obscure archaeological site in the middle of nowhere. > I had some ideas, none managed to deal with "weird borders somewhere".___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary
* Mateusz Konieczny > 21 Dec 2019, 12:00 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: >> I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within >> a country and try to solve the problem of roads in low-zoom maps at >> the rendering level, by modifying the list of displayed road classes >> until a target density of displayed roads is reached. That might >> become easier to do when we move to vector tiles. > Seems not doable with OSM data - this > would require far more road classes > than we use. Why would we need more road classes for that? This would only be an issue if the difference between two "adjacent" classes would be so big that you would jump from "almost none" to "to many to display" in one step. > lane and surface data is also almost > certainly not helpful here even with full > coverage > And it would result in weird transitions > between countries. Only if road density changes rapidly at the border, and then we would just depict the weird transition that exists in reality. I think it might be possible to upgrade the "minimum zoom level to display" on a way if there are no already displayed ways in an area, maybe only if it connects to an already displayed way (recursive). That way we would boost the minimum zoom level of e.g. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/196509120 to zoom-level 11 or maybe even 9, even with it being just a low quality dirt track going near an obscure archaeological site in the middle of nowhere. Wolfgang ( lyx@osm ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary
21 Dec 2019, 12:00 by wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org: > I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within > a country and try to solve the problem of roads in low-zoom maps at > the rendering level, by modifying the list of displayed road classes > until a target density of displayed roads is reached. That might > become easier to do when we move to vector tiles. > Seems not doable with OSM data - this would require far more road classes than we use. lane and surface data is also almost certainly not helpful here even with full coverage And it would result in weird transitions between countries.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary
* Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Above it was said that the highway=trunk vs highway=primary > distinction is mostly for routing applications. But allowing a proper > rendering is also a main goal of the road tagging system. > While it's true that road class is useful for routing when there are > two alterate routes, a main reason to tag highways with a certain > class is to be able to render maps properly at different zoom levels. > When you are making a high-scale, low-zoom-level map of a large area > (say, the whole State of Alaska, all of England, or all of Australia), > you will want to only render highway=motorway + highway=trunk, because > showing all highway=primary would lead to rendering many smaller roads > which are not reasonable to show at that scale in most places. > [..] What makes the problem of road classification so hard is that we want it to do different things at once. For rendering we have on the one hand the requirement that we want to show all the "relevant" roads for a given zoom level, on the other hand, as a map user I would expect that a road shown as e.g. trunk in Massachusets would be quite similar in characteristics to a road shown as trunk in Montana. I suggest to keep the road classification consistent at least within a country and try to solve the problem of roads in low-zoom maps at the rendering level, by modifying the list of displayed road classes until a target density of displayed roads is reached. That might become easier to do when we move to vector tiles. Wolfgang ( lyx@osm ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
21 Dec 2019, 01:09 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com: > Above it was said that the highway=trunk vs highway=primary > distinction is mostly for routing applications. But allowing a proper > rendering is also a main goal of the road tagging system. > Yes, during my work on road display in OSM Carto I really wished for consistent use of highway=trunk as "The most important roads on national level, but not motorways". I encountered some definitions of highway=trunk describing this type of user, but it is sadly not universally followed. I think it would be desirable to use it this way, rather than for tagging of "high performance roads below motorway quality". > While it's true that road class is useful for routing when there are > two alterate routes, a main reason to tag highways with a certain > class is to be able to render maps properly at different zoom levels. > > When you are making a high-scale, low-zoom-level map of a large area > (say, the whole State of Alaska, all of England, or all of Australia), > you will want to only render highway=motorway + highway=trunk, because > showing all highway=primary would lead to rendering many smaller roads > which are not reasonable to show at that scale in most places. > +1___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
21 Dec 2019, 01:44 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com> > > wrote: > >> >> 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 extensive secondary systems), >>> major/minor_collector...the US just has a way more complex view of how >>> highways work. >>> >>> Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at >>> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS>>> (but perhaps >>> with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new "highway=quartinary". >>> >> Fitting thing like road classification >> into UK system is irritating at times. >> >> But idea of each country with separate tags >> for roads is simply a bad idea. >> > > Could you expand on this? Being able to speak each country's highway lingua > franca would make it a lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps > simply from ease of classification. > I am consider it unlikely that it would make anything easier. Current solution is not ideal butfollowing each local and incompatible classification scheme instead seems to not be better. I am 100% OK with tagging official road status somehow - US expressway, US highway route, Polish droga wojewódzka, Polish droga gminna and so on. But as a new (maybe already existing) tag. But do not expect 1:1 mapping to highway tag value. > > >> >> This info is probably worth recording, >> but legal status should go into a separate tag. >> > > Legal status of roads in the US isn't quite as clearcut as it is in the UK, > where the highway=* tag is literally equal to that country's legal > classification, plus private roads with significant public passage and/or > reach. Off the top of my head we have 1 country, 2 states, 34 tribes, 77 > counties and 597 towns, plus MacQuarie Group Australia running the turnpikes > and the Boy Scouts of America, Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips, or some > combination of the three, and potentially scores more private entities, > operating extensive networks of publicly accessible roads and highways in > Oklahoma. And I generally consider myself lucky I have it > this> > straightforward in the US. > > Texas likely has similar situations but throw in the fact that they have 7 > different state highway systems before you get into at least 3 more > (regional? state? private? unclear...) competing turnpike networks, sometimes > running side by side on the same right of way (consider TX 121 with the > George Bush Turnpike operated by the North Texas Transportation Agency > running down the median). > > Simply starting with the HFCS and expanding from that (particularly on the > freeway/expressway distinction, and having more levels between secondary and > unclassified) would be a fantastic boon to dealing with this mess in a more > concise fashion as it changes highway=* tagging from almost entirely > subjective to subjective but within a limited range. Establish wiki pages > describing how each region works and let the consumers sort it out from there. > > At an absolute minimum, we really need to establish values lower than > tertiary yet above unclassified, and we definitely do need to make the > freeway/expressway distinction. > I consider any plan that would add new highway values to be unlikely to succeed. Consider introducing new tags instead.___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
> On Dec 20, 2019, at 5:25 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but > straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* > are still potentially routable. I sure wouldn’t want to be the person in charge of maintaining either the style definition or the SQL select function that had to decide which of many possible highway tag values I was going to render as a freeway, major road, minor road, etc. when creating a map that covers the whole world or even just a significant part of it. Cheers! Tod signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:22 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote: > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:16, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make > it a lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from > ease of classification. > >> > >> That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of "highway=primary" in > >> Indonesia, so any global map service (like opencyclemap.org) would > >> need to interpret all these tags from different languages. If you > >> limit this to just official languages there would be several hundred > >> to translate, but there are over 1500 languages with a written > >> language currently: I don't see why we would limit things to just > >> official languages. > > > > > > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But the > local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in English > for consistency sake) for the value. > > Why in English? Bundesstraße is a broadly accepted classification > terminology, so is autostrada. If you want to do things for > consistency sake, there are the accepted OSM-British-English names. > What I'm saying is highway=bundesstraße could be acceptable, but straße=bundestraße wouldn't be. Mostly so way type objects with highway=* are still potentially routable. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 6:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a > lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of > classification. > > That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of "highway=primary" in > Indonesia, so any global map service (like opencyclemap.org) would > need to interpret all these tags from different languages. If you > limit this to just official languages there would be several hundred > to translate, but there are over 1500 languages with a written > language currently: I don't see why we would limit things to just > official languages. > I'm not arguing in favor of a change in language for key name. But the local broadly accepted classification terminology (preferably in English for consistency sake) for the value. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
> Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a lot > easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of > classification. That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of "highway=primary" in Indonesia, so any global map service (like opencyclemap.org) would need to interpret all these tags from different languages. If you limit this to just official languages there would be several hundred to translate, but there are over 1500 languages with a written language currently: I don't see why we would limit things to just official languages. The main feature tags are in British English and they should be translated to the appropriate local context by local mappers in each area, rather than creating new feature tags for every country and language, so that global maps and routing applications can continue to work. It's also helpful that mappers in Germany and Japan can help map my area here in Indonesia, adding rivers, lakes and roads based on aerial imagery. They would have trouble if they needed to learn the hundreds of local languages in each part of Indonesia to tag things properly. -Joseph Eisenberg On 12/21/19, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> >> 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 extensive secondary systems), >> major/minor_collector...the US just has a way more complex view of how >> highways work. >> >> Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS (but perhaps >> with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new >> "highway=quartinary". >> >> Fitting thing like road classification >> into UK system is irritating at times. >> >> But idea of each country with separate tags >> for roads is simply a bad idea. >> > > Could you expand on this? Being able to speak each country's highway > lingua franca would make it a lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta > Stone of maps simply from ease of classification. > > >> This info is probably worth recording, >> but legal status should go into a separate tag. >> > > Legal status of roads in the US isn't quite as clearcut as it is in the UK, > where the highway=* tag is literally equal to that country's legal > classification, plus private roads with significant public passage and/or > reach. Off the top of my head we have 1 country, 2 states, 34 tribes, 77 > counties and 597 towns, plus MacQuarie Group Australia running the > turnpikes and the Boy Scouts of America, Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips, or > some combination of the three, and potentially scores more private > entities, operating extensive networks of publicly accessible roads and > highways in Oklahoma. And I generally consider myself lucky I have it > *this* straightforward in the US. > > Texas likely has similar situations but throw in the fact that they have 7 > different state highway systems before you get into at least 3 more > (regional? state? private? unclear...) competing turnpike networks, > sometimes running side by side on the same right of way (consider TX 121 > with the George Bush Turnpike operated by the North Texas Transportation > Agency running down the median). > > Simply starting with the HFCS and expanding from that (particularly on the > freeway/expressway distinction, and having more levels between secondary > and unclassified) would be a fantastic boon to dealing with this mess in a > more concise fashion as it changes highway=* tagging from almost entirely > subjective to subjective but within a limited range. Establish wiki pages > describing how each region works and let the consumers sort it out from > there. > > At an absolute minimum, we really need to establish values lower than > tertiary yet above unclassified, and we definitely do need to make the > freeway/expressway distinction. > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 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 extensive secondary systems), > major/minor_collector...the US just has a way more complex view of how > highways work. > > Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS (but perhaps > with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new "highway=quartinary". > > Fitting thing like road classification > into UK system is irritating at times. > > But idea of each country with separate tags > for roads is simply a bad idea. > Could you expand on this? Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of classification. > This info is probably worth recording, > but legal status should go into a separate tag. > Legal status of roads in the US isn't quite as clearcut as it is in the UK, where the highway=* tag is literally equal to that country's legal classification, plus private roads with significant public passage and/or reach. Off the top of my head we have 1 country, 2 states, 34 tribes, 77 counties and 597 towns, plus MacQuarie Group Australia running the turnpikes and the Boy Scouts of America, Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips, or some combination of the three, and potentially scores more private entities, operating extensive networks of publicly accessible roads and highways in Oklahoma. And I generally consider myself lucky I have it *this* straightforward in the US. Texas likely has similar situations but throw in the fact that they have 7 different state highway systems before you get into at least 3 more (regional? state? private? unclear...) competing turnpike networks, sometimes running side by side on the same right of way (consider TX 121 with the George Bush Turnpike operated by the North Texas Transportation Agency running down the median). Simply starting with the HFCS and expanding from that (particularly on the freeway/expressway distinction, and having more levels between secondary and unclassified) would be a fantastic boon to dealing with this mess in a more concise fashion as it changes highway=* tagging from almost entirely subjective to subjective but within a limited range. Establish wiki pages describing how each region works and let the consumers sort it out from there. At an absolute minimum, we really need to establish values lower than tertiary yet above unclassified, and we definitely do need to make the freeway/expressway distinction. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] [Tagging] Trunk VS primary,
Above it was said that the highway=trunk vs highway=primary distinction is mostly for routing applications. But allowing a proper rendering is also a main goal of the road tagging system. While it's true that road class is useful for routing when there are two alterate routes, a main reason to tag highways with a certain class is to be able to render maps properly at different zoom levels. When you are making a high-scale, low-zoom-level map of a large area (say, the whole State of Alaska, all of England, or all of Australia), you will want to only render highway=motorway + highway=trunk, because showing all highway=primary would lead to rendering many smaller roads which are not reasonable to show at that scale in most places. In England, where these tags were developed, the distinction between highway=trunk and highway=primary is subtle: both are "A" roads in the official classification system, but highway=trunk has a special sub-classification which says they are more important than other "A" roads (tagged as primary): "UK OSM users follow the practice that all green-signed A routes (ie primary routes) are tagged highway=trunk, while black-and-white-signed A-roads (ie non-primary routes) are tagged highway=primary". Thus in the USA it's reasonable to use highway=primary for most State and some US highways, while the most significant ones which connect cities and large towns would be tagged highway=trunk. Look at England at z7 on the Openstreetmap-carto style (the highest level where highway=primary is not shown): https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/52.017/-0.261 The highway=trunk roads shown here are the main routes between cities and towns. Zooming in to z8 shows a dense network of highway=primary roads connecting smaller towns and large villages to towns and cities, which would not be reasonable to show at z7 Unfortunately, the road classification system in parts of Continental Europe was different, so mappers in some major countries, including Germany and France, chose to use highway=trunk as synonym for "motorroad" (somewhat similar to a U.S.A. "expressway"), with other major roads tagged as highway=primary. If you look around the Openstreetmap-carto rendering of Europ at z7, you will see many gaps in the rendered road network in these countries and surrounding areas that use the same system. Compare Spain and Romania, which instead use highway=trunk for all major non- motorway roads between cities: here the country-wide road network is clearly visible with showing just highway=trunk and highway=motorway at z6 and z7. In the USA, it's fine to limit highway=trunk to expressways in eastern States where all the important US highways are expressways and these form a dense network connecting all cities and towns. But in sparsely-populated Western states even some of the Interstate highways are not fully motorways, and almost all US highways are just 2 lanes (one each way) in the area between the Cascades and the Rocky Mountains, even those that are the main cross-State routes. If we don't tag these highways as highway=trunk it isn't possible to render this area in a reasonable way while using the same rendering rules for the whole USA. Major US and State highways between cities, like AK-2 and CA-199, CA-299, US 97 (main route in Eastern Oregon) and US 101 should be tagged as more significant than a tiny State road in Delaware which only connects small towns and villages. I would suggest looking at the Indonesian road tagging guidelines (which I was not involved in developing, but I use in mapping locally): they show very different road quality between the developed areas and the remote parts of the country: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Indonesian_Tagging_Guidelines#Examples_of_road_class_in_several_provinces_in_Indonesia. Most trunk roads are only 1 lane each way, but they are still the main, National road connecting the large cities on each island. This should be expected in other large countries like the USA, Australia and Canada. For tagging the status of a road as a "motorroad" or "expressway" I would recommend using the tags motorroad=yes and expressway=yes, rather than tagging all expressways and motorroads as highway=trunk no matter their classification or significance in the road network. And adding maxspeed=, surface=, lanes= and access= will allow routing applications and specialized renderers to treat these roads properly. Joseph Eisenberg On 12/21/19, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 at 08:53, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 22:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick >> wrote: >> >>> >>> But would they still count as either =trunk or =primary? >>> >>> While they're of high local importance, they're definitely not >>> high-performance & they don't link major population centres either? >>> >> >> You have just identified three orthogonal dimensions: >> >>- Construction (what you call "performance": motorway or dirt track) >>- Traffic (number of
