Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mark Wagner]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:52:19 -0300
Fernando Trebien  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM Mark Wagner 
> wrote:
> > When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong
> > into a quirk of American political geography.  Historically, the
> > postal service would only deliver mail to buildings within a
> > certain distance of a post office, while people further away would
> > be responsible for visiting the post office to pick their mail up.
> > As a result, it was quite common for a group of farmers or ranchers
> > to get together and have themselves declared a community in order
> > to get a post office.  
> 
> Pardon my ignorance, do those hamlets typically correspond to OSM's
> description (100-200 inhabitants), in contrast with other possible
> values (place=locality for no inhabitants, place=isolated_dwelling for
> less than 3 households)? I'm seeing from Bing imagery that Osborne
> Corner has several households, as does Nille Corner. They are close to
> the generic threshold for being considered isolated dwellings, but
> still pass. I'm not familiar with the exact details of how place=* is
> assigned in the US. In Brazil we still use the "generic" rules for
> place=* (even though I've tried pushing the adoption of our national
> Geography Institute's criteria).

I'd estimate the Nilles Corner area as having four farmsteads and one
abandoned farmstead, for a total of seven houses.  Osborne Corner
appears to have three farmsteads and five houses.  I suspect that much
of what you're seeing as "households" are actually farm outbuildings.

The best way I've found to identify "real" hamlets is the presence of a
cemetery.  A group of people who consider themselves a community will
usually have their own cemetery, while a group of people who are filing
paperwork for personal advantage won't.  See Anatone[1] (population 48)
or the smaller Lone Pine[2] for examples of a real hamlet.

> So, using this area as an example, what would be a more sensible
> highway classification for you? I don't think it is correct (based on
> the original intention) to classify roads that have only a few houses
> spread between farms as highway=residential. The wiki says (and I
> agree) that residential streets typically have lower speed limits and
> sometimes traffic calming devices, designed to ensure the safety of
> dwellers. As such, highway=residential typically shows up in more
> dense urban areas, even small ones, but not over large expanses of
> farms.

Most of them are mis-tagged as residential; I'd consider them to be
unclassified. Some of them, especially the unnamed ones, are probably
tracks.  Leahy Road/P Road between WA-17 and Nilles Corner, and Y Road
between WA-174 and Osborne Corner might be tertiary, since they look
like improved collector roads for the farms in the area.  There's
probably a mis-tagged driveway or two in the area, but I haven't really
looked closely.

 [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150974010
 [2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/150932853

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Johnson]

That actually looks pretty correct.  It's a state highway and emergency
vehicles are allowed to travel on it, so emergency=yes would be appropriate
as well.  ref=MI 185 would be better, since US references are XX YYY where
XX is the state postal abbreviation (NOT SH, SR, K, M or whatever), but
source:maxspeed=US:rural makes no sense at all (not just here, but in any
context).

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:08 PM Sergio Manzi  wrote:

> Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different
> tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian
> alternative.
>
> As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (*no motor vehicles
> there...*) is tagged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17874338
>
> I've seen others too, but OTOMH I can't remember where, probably France 
> (*possibly
> St. Malo...*) and/or Netherland, but by Googling for "pedestrian
> town/city" and then checking on OSM,  several pops up...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-02-26 15:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi :
>
>> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>>
>> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are
>> not!
>
>
>
>
> Venice is a globally unique (or maybe almost unique) exception anyway, but
> what we currently have there is the result of people reclassifying all the
> footways as pedestrian roads, even if they are 50 cm wide. I have started
> in the past several attempts to open a discussion on this, but it felt like
> Don Quixote. See this as an example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488627565/history I have surveyed it
> myself, like many others, where I began to reclassify the very narrow
> footpaths from pedestrian to footway, but I am not local and people destroy
> the finer grained distinction of footway and pedestrian as soon as you add
> them, I guess they do not want the red dots. It is unfortunate, because it
> makes the Venice map much harder to read and less useful. If you are local,
> please try to improve the situation, we do not need new tags, it would be
> sufficient to apply the existing ones consistently rather than
> indiscriminately.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 19:09 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi :

> Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different
> tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian
> alternative.
>
> As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (*no motor vehicles
> there...*) is tagged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17874338
>
> I've seen others too, but OTOMH I can't remember where, probably France 
> (*possibly
> St. Malo...*) and/or Netherland, but by Googling for "pedestrian
> town/city" and then checking on OSM,  several pops up...
>


these other examples are quite different though, the particularity of
venice is that it is an intense urban setting, with a complete ban for
bicycles, and a very hard time for any other wheeled vehicles like
wheelchairs and strollers, due to frequent bridges with steps. I agree
somehow that you can find similar conditions in historic centres in areas
with hills (i.e. lots of steps as well). Usually we would not tag anything
smaller than at least 3-4 meters as pedestrian road, for sure not a footway
where even a wheelchair can't pass due to the width (like the 50cm example
I gave above).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 3:09 PM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different 
> tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian 
> alternative.
>
> As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (no motor vehicles 
> there...) is tagged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17874338

Interesting. This is sometimes called "Drive" but driving is not
allowed... In fact, motorised vehicles are forbidden, only walking,
cycling and horseback riding. It looks like cycling is the primary
activity there, so maybe highway=cycleway isn't really that wrong. I'd
guess it was set back to secondary to strictly follow the US tagging
guidelines [1], which make no sense to me in this particular case.

What makes this even more detached from expectations is that some
bicycle routers (OSRM, GraphHopper) tend to avoid highway=secondary
and higher, so a way that is primarily for cycling would end up being
avoided.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

P.S. a note to Andy Townsend: We are not at "/the price of fish/" yet, but 
we're rapidly closing in...    :-)

On 2019-02-26 19:19, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> Exactly! And in Venice there is an official designation of roads accordingly 
> to their availability in case of exceptional high tides ("/Acqua alta/") of 
> different heights, but AFAIK this essential information is not registered 
> anywhere in OSM...
>
> Are you a Venetian too, Fernando?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

Exactly! And in Venice there is an official designation of roads accordingly to 
their availability in case of exceptional high tides ("/Acqua alta/") of 
different heights, but AFAIK this essential information is not registered 
anywhere in OSM...

Are you a Venetian too, Fernando?

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2019-02-26 17:28, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> I believe you, I've spent a week there one year ago. As a map user I
> would prefer to have the safe passages during acqua alta [1] somehow
> highlighted, or at least the main pedestrian routes between the main
> plazas, and I think many of the narrower alleys (some are narrower
> than the width of a car) could be highway=footway with no damage to
> map readability.
>
> [1] http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4259181423_586509d152.jpg
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: 
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>>
>> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are 
>> not!
>>
>> Sergio


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different 
tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian 
alternative.

As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (/no motor vehicles 
there.../) is tagged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17874338

I've seen others too, but OTOMH I can't remember where, probably France 
(/possibly St. Malo.../) and/or Netherland, but by Googling for "pedestrian 
town/city" and then checking on OSM,  several pops up...

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2019-02-26 15:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi  >:
>
> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>
> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are 
> not!
>
>
>
>
> Venice is a globally unique (or maybe almost unique) exception anyway, but 
> what we currently have there is the result of people reclassifying all the 
> footways as pedestrian roads, even if they are 50 cm wide. I have started in 
> the past several attempts to open a discussion on this, but it felt like Don 
> Quixote. See this as an example: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488627565/history I have surveyed it 
> myself, like many others, where I began to reclassify the very narrow 
> footpaths from pedestrian to footway, but I am not local and people destroy 
> the finer grained distinction of footway and pedestrian as soon as you add 
> them, I guess they do not want the red dots. It is unfortunate, because it 
> makes the Venice map much harder to read and less useful. If you are local, 
> please try to improve the situation, we do not need new tags, it would be 
> sufficient to apply the existing ones consistently rather than 
> indiscriminately.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-02-26 15:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien 
> mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com>>:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi  > wrote:
> I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
> be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
> the wiki. 
>
>
>

Hi!

The above citation could be mistakenly taken as mine, but that's not the case...

Cheers,

Sergio


> not at all, we already have classified all of our roads according to wiki, 
> surroundings/context, local knowledge etc.
> If we are to add "Codice della Strada" classes, it should not influence the 
> highway class, it should be an additional tag.
>
> We might also decide to tag the Italian network classes explicitly. I'm not 
> an expert in this field, but from a quick internet lookup it appears in Italy 
> there are 4 classes of (kind of) movement: a - primary network (transit), b - 
> principal network (distribution), c - secondary network (penetration), d - 
> local network (access).
> For the specific characteristics you must take into account whether the road 
> is inside or outside of a built-up area (this is generally an interesting 
> information for which we do not explicitly cater in general with our tagging, 
> but which should probably be introduced).
>
> When planning a road you must additionally take into account:
> - entity of movement (median distance that the vehicles travel)
> - territorial connecting function (national, interregional, provincial, local)
> - traffic components (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorvehicles, 
> pedestrians, etc.)
>
> You can find more information in this ministrial decrete from 2001 which was 
> issued after the new 1992 CdS law: 
> http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=1983
> (this is mainly thought as a reference for the Italian mappers, I do not 
> expect the others to read through 100 pages in Italian).
>
> The CdS classes are only part of the entire picture, e.g. the same CdS class 
> (example "B Strada extraurbana principale") may be used for a "movement a" or 
> "movement b" kind of road.
>
>  
>
> This would help Italians make sense of the map.
>
>
>
> really, the sense does not come from classifications mostly, it is the refs 
> and names that make the information locally relevant. Joe Mapuser really 
> doesn't need all the detail information typically, because we have already 
> conveniently summarized everything into a single highway class ;-)
> Still, we should not deny the addition of detail, but it likely doesn't mean 
> we can set up a lookup-table CdS to highway class and be done.
>
>
> Except for the official categories in Codice della Strada, I think
> such attributes of the road should go into specific tags.
>
>
>
> if there is a clear 1:1 correlation between CdS and OSM, e.g. motorways, we 
> already have that information in the map (well, besides we do not have 
> specific tags yet for motorways in built-up settings).
>  
>
>
> For example,
> in Brazil, the administrative responsibility is represented by the
> road's reference code, so it can be easily identified from ref=* tags
>
>
>
> same in Germany, Italy and likely many other places indeed.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
> Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien 
> :
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>> I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
>> be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
>> the wiki.
>
> not at all, we already have classified all of our roads according to wiki, 
> surroundings/context, local knowledge etc.
> If we are to add "Codice della Strada" classes, it should not influence the 
> highway class, it should be an additional tag.

Well, I brought this up because it would be interesting to discuss at
least how is the official classification of roads in Italy inadequate
for OSM's highway=*.

> We might also decide to tag the Italian network classes explicitly. I'm not 
> an expert in this field, but from a quick internet lookup it appears in Italy 
> there are 4 classes of (kind of) movement: a - primary network (transit), b - 
> principal network (distribution), c - secondary network (penetration), d - 
> local network (access).

> You can find more information in this ministrial decrete from 2001 which was 
> issued after the new 1992 CdS law: 
> http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=1983
> (this is mainly thought as a reference for the Italian mappers, I do not 
> expect the others to read through 100 pages in Italian).

What's described in pages 5-8 sounds a lot like the main functional
categories used in the US and in Brazil. [1] Starting at page 23 this
document presents some physical profiles of roads. As a developed
country, I would expect this to be quite uniform across Italy. If that
is true, then physical attributes can indeed determine highway=* in
OSM.

Apparently what is different between Italy and Brazil is that Italy
has a unified classification system for the whole country, whereas in
Brazil each municipality can define different physical profiles and
highway classes for its streets and roads (non-municipal roads of
course are more standardized). So, in Brazil, I've had more success
first assigning municipal classes to the national classes, and then
those to OSM. But if classification is done solely by the physical
attributes, then variations between municipalities break the
functional organization of the system, leading to a messy map. Some
Brazilian municipalities or even parts of municipalities have been
built with American standards (wide, straight streets), others
(usually older) with European standards (curvy streets, narrower,
sometimes as narrow as medieval streets).

> For the specific characteristics you must take into account whether the road 
> is inside or outside of a built-up area (this is generally an interesting 
> information for which we do not explicitly cater in general with our tagging, 
> but which should probably be introduced).
>
> When planning a road you must additionally take into account:
> - entity of movement (median distance that the vehicles travel)
> - territorial connecting function (national, interregional, provincial, local)
> - traffic components (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorvehicles, 
> pedestrians, etc.)

That's very much what functional classification is all about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_classification

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

I believe you, I've spent a week there one year ago. As a map user I
would prefer to have the safe passages during acqua alta [1] somehow
highlighted, or at least the main pedestrian routes between the main
plazas, and I think many of the narrower alleys (some are narrower
than the width of a car) could be highway=footway with no damage to
map readability.

[1] http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4259181423_586509d152.jpg

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>
> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are not!
>
> Sergio

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi :

> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>
> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are
> not!




Venice is a globally unique (or maybe almost unique) exception anyway, but
what we currently have there is the result of people reclassifying all the
footways as pedestrian roads, even if they are 50 cm wide. I have started
in the past several attempts to open a discussion on this, but it felt like
Don Quixote. See this as an example:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488627565/history I have surveyed it
myself, like many others, where I began to reclassify the very narrow
footpaths from pedestrian to footway, but I am not local and people destroy
the finer grained distinction of footway and pedestrian as soon as you add
them, I guess they do not want the red dots. It is unfortunate, because it
makes the Venice map much harder to read and less useful. If you are local,
please try to improve the situation, we do not need new tags, it would be
sufficient to apply the existing ones consistently rather than
indiscriminately.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
> be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
> the wiki.



not at all, we already have classified all of our roads according to wiki,
surroundings/context, local knowledge etc.
If we are to add "Codice della Strada" classes, it should not influence the
highway class, it should be an additional tag.

We might also decide to tag the Italian network classes explicitly. I'm not
an expert in this field, but from a quick internet lookup it appears in
Italy there are 4 classes of (kind of) movement: a - primary network
(transit), b - principal network (distribution), c - secondary network
(penetration), d - local network (access).
For the specific characteristics you must take into account whether the
road is inside or outside of a built-up area (this is generally an
interesting information for which we do not explicitly cater in general
with our tagging, but which should probably be introduced).

When planning a road you must additionally take into account:
- entity of movement (median distance that the vehicles travel)
- territorial connecting function (national, interregional, provincial,
local)
- traffic components (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorvehicles,
pedestrians, etc.)

You can find more information in this ministrial decrete from 2001 which
was issued after the new 1992 CdS law:
http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=1983
(this is mainly thought as a reference for the Italian mappers, I do not
expect the others to read through 100 pages in Italian).

The CdS classes are only part of the entire picture, e.g. the same CdS
class (example "B Strada extraurbana principale") may be used for a
"movement a" or "movement b" kind of road.



> This would help Italians make sense of the map.



really, the sense does not come from classifications mostly, it is the refs
and names that make the information locally relevant. Joe Mapuser really
doesn't need all the detail information typically, because we have already
conveniently summarized everything into a single highway class ;-)
Still, we should not deny the addition of detail, but it likely doesn't
mean we can set up a lookup-table CdS to highway class and be done.


Except for the official categories in Codice della Strada, I think
> such attributes of the road should go into specific tags.



if there is a clear 1:1 correlation between CdS and OSM, e.g. motorways, we
already have that information in the map (well, besides we do not have
specific tags yet for motorways in built-up settings).



For example,
> in Brazil, the administrative responsibility is represented by the
> road's reference code, so it can be easily identified from ref=* tags
>


same in Germany, Italy and likely many other places indeed.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
>> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
>> functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.
>>
>
> What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.
> It makes the
> assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with
> its classification.
>


this may be the situation in the UK, in the rest of the world (at least
non-Commonwealth), we do not have these issues, because we are classifying
the roads ourselves, rather than translating one of the different
categorizations that are locally available.




> Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is
> still the implicit
> assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a
> secondary route.
>


of course, under "normal" conditions, a primary road should be "better"
than a secondary road, for long-distance travel.



>
> It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a
> primary route in the UK
> to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a
> secondary route between the
> same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.
>


this is again a problem isolated to the UK, and not useful to discuss on
the international mailing list because it really only applies to British
areas.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

Only as a philosophical detour: sounds like the sort of difference
between highway=footway and highway=pedestrian. It deserves its own
topic I think.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:32 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path 
> and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways 
> and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for 
> example).

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334

All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are not!

Sergio


On 2019-02-26 14:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path 
> and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways 
> and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for 
> example).



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:01 AM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> Whoa,
>
> What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up 
> with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. 
> Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of 
> numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc.
>
> What's going on?

Highway classification is confusing at all (motorised) levels and
we're comparing principles used for other classes to see which should
apply to these two. At least that's how I was understanding it.

Regards

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Johnson]

Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path
and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways
and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for
example).

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:39 AM Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
>> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
>> functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.
>>
>
> What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.
> It makes the
> assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with
> its classification.
> Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is
> still the implicit
> assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a
> secondary route.
>
> It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a
> primary route in the UK
> to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a
> secondary route between the
> same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.  Road classifications in the
> UK are essentially
> hints to the routeing algorithm in drivers' heads.  A primary route from A
> to B is generally
> preferable to a secondary route because of a combination of factors
> including speed, width,
> straightness, length, junctions (lights or roundabouts), surface, and
> signage.  On any single
> one of those metrics the secondary may be better than the primary, but
> overall the primary
> is preferable.  A secondary route in one locality may be better in all
> respects than the primary
> in a different locality but that route is a primary because it is the best
> route (for some values
> of "best") betweentwo important locations.
>
> Is this a good way to model thing?  Probably.  Because anyone in the UK
> looking to get from A to
> B will consider primary routes first, trusting that the authorities have
> evaluated matters and that
> the primary routes are (normally) the best routes to choose.  It's not
> perfect, which is why satnavs
> usually offer the choice of looking for the fastest or shortest route.
> But if all you have is a paper map,
> then knowing which are primary and secondary routes is useful.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

On 2019-02-26 14:13, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> Whoa,
>>
>> What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come 
>> up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or 
>> residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and 
>> some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc.
>>
>> What's going on?
>
> It's the tagging list.  It'll move on to the price of fish next :)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy


Yeah... true... but interesting discussion nonetheless!

Cheers,

Sergio




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote:

Whoa,

What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to 
come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified 
or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic 
speed, and some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, 
etc.


What's going on?


It's the tagging list.  It'll move on to the price of fish next :)

Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:40 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
>> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
>> functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.
>
>
> What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.  It 
> makes the
> assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with its 
> classification.
> Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is 
> still the implicit
> assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a secondary 
> route.

This leads me to this question: if we can map road attributes using
specific tags (width=*, speed=*, lanes=*, surface=*, even divided=*
which is currently represented by geometry), then why highway=* has to
correlate strictly with them? I think highway=* is intended to
represent something else, not what mappers commonly think, though the
two would be correlated.

> It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a 
> primary route in the UK
> to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a secondary 
> route between the
> same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.  Road classifications in the UK 
> are essentially
> hints to the routeing algorithm in drivers' heads.  A primary route from A to 
> B is generally
> preferable to a secondary route because of a combination of factors including 
> speed, width,
> straightness, length, junctions (lights or roundabouts), surface, and 
> signage.  On any single
> one of those metrics the secondary may be better than the primary, but 
> overall the primary
> is preferable.  A secondary route in one locality may be better in all 
> respects than the primary
> in a different locality but that route is a primary because it is the best 
> route (for some values
> of "best") betweentwo important locations.

There's a very interesting similar situation near the place where I
live in Brazil. There are two main routes between a metropolis of 4
million people (Porto Alegre) and the second largest city in the state
(Caxias do Sul), which are 2 hours apart from each other: the shorter
federal highway, and a longer string of three state highways. Both are
paved, but the state highways are divided and higher speed, while the
federal highway contorts through hilly terrain. As a result, the state
highways are the main route between the two, so, there's consensus
that in this particular case the federal highway is not as important
and the state highways should be classified as more important than
that one.

A while ago I crunched some numbers and revealed that paved federal
highways highly correlate with the functional trunk class as published
by some local authorities, though the correlation is not exact. So if
we were classifying based solely on attributes, we would have achieved
a result that is not in line with consensus in this rather significant
case, though it would mostly agree in general.

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi  wrote:
>
> +1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy 
> (https://xkcd.com/927/)
>
> BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if 
> and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories 
> in the Italian Traffic Code (Codice della Strada) are.
>
> There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification 
> (something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken) 
> instead of a "descriptive classification".
>
> But other concerns are emerging too (at least in my head!), like the 
> administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (state, region, 
> province, municipality, private) and ad-hoc values as input for the router 
> (speed limits, traffic density, etc. *OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  
> ).

I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
the wiki. This would help Italians make sense of the map. For years
Brazil's Transit code categories have been assigned to OSM's classes
at least in urban areas and the result has been quite satisfactory. We
do have some lack of consensus on what to do outside those areas, as
OSM has many more classes to choose from that our Transit Code
describes, but we're still working on it.

Except for the official categories in Codice della Strada, I think
such attributes of the road should go into specific tags. For example,
in Brazil, the administrative responsibility is represented by the
road's reference code, so it can be easily identified from ref=* tags
(only the municipal level has no codes, with a few exceptions).
Private roads can simply be tagged with access=private; this is common
in Brazil in gated communities [1]. Speed limits can be easily
specified with maxspeed=*.

Traffic density is related to two things in Brazil: the road's planned
function, and its de facto function. Both at urban and rural levels,
many roads are not as developed as their plan would imply - not too
different from the unpaved roads of Canada (still classified as
trunk), which appear far away from the more developed urban centres.
It seems that, not only in Brazil, it is common practice to expand a
road to its final physical design only when rising demand justifies
the investment. When there are no speed limit signs, it is this
planned (not the de facto) function that counts legally when assessing
speed limits and access rights.

This leads to a situation where many roads seem unimportant when
context is ignored, despite being the main routes between important,
nearby places:
- main routes between capitals of adjacent states being partially unpaved
- main routes between a larger city and its satellite villages
accessible only by unpaved roads
- unpaved urban collectors (rarely, even arterials) in less developed cities
- roads with few lanes that are in good condition, are high speed but
have little traffic

"Preference" as in "this is a good road to drive on" is very subjective.

When using routers such as OSRM and GraphHopper, route choice ignores
highway classification after maxspeed=* and surface=* are mapped, with
the exception of access rights of particular modes (bicycles on
motorways, cars on pedestrian ways, etc.).

When using simpler routers based on heuristics, it is important that
each network level (trunk, primary, secondary) do not have any gaps
(eg. a trunk/primary through road should connect both ends of a city),
otherwise computed routes are likely to needlessly tell the driver to
go around usually fine routes.

Finally, there's the visual aspect for users that are not using
automated routers (like those using printed maps). Commercial maps do
not have gaps in classification, as this makes reading harder and
leads to confusion.

Regards,

[1] Gated community example with private residential ways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7332391

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien 
wrote:

>
> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
> functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.
>

What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.
It makes the
assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with its
classification.
Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is
still the implicit
assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a
secondary route.

It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a
primary route in the UK
to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a secondary
route between the
same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.  Road classifications in the
UK are essentially
hints to the routeing algorithm in drivers' heads.  A primary route from A
to B is generally
preferable to a secondary route because of a combination of factors
including speed, width,
straightness, length, junctions (lights or roundabouts), surface, and
signage.  On any single
one of those metrics the secondary may be better than the primary, but
overall the primary
is preferable.  A secondary route in one locality may be better in all
respects than the primary
in a different locality but that route is a primary because it is the best
route (for some values
of "best") betweentwo important locations.

Is this a good way to model thing?  Probably.  Because anyone in the UK
looking to get from A to
B will consider primary routes first, trusting that the authorities have
evaluated matters and that
the primary routes are (normally) the best routes to choose.  It's not
perfect, which is why satnavs
usually offer the choice of looking for the fastest or shortest route.  But
if all you have is a paper map,
then knowing which are primary and secondary routes is useful.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 6:11 PM Andy Townsend  wrote:
> It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind
> is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

Funny old one, though a bit sarcastic. Many standards we have today
have emerged from competing standards, and that's true from data
protocols to units of measurement.

I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 05:28, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of
> use to fit others classifications to.
>

There is such a page.  It probably won't help.  It confuses me and I live
here. :)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315783/road-classification-guidance.pdf

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Dave Swarthout]

Whoa,

What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come
up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or
residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and
some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc.

What's going on?

Signed,
Confused in Thailand. (AlaskaDave)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:28 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 26/02/19 10:59, Sergio Manzi wrote:
>
> +1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (
> https://xkcd.com/927/)
>
> BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if
> and how we should tag highways according to what are the official
> categories in the Italian Traffic Code (*Codice della Strada*) are.
>
> There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification 
> (*something
> that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken*) instead of
> a "descriptive classification".
>
> Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of
> use to fit others classifications to.
>
> But other concerns are emerging too (*at least in my head!*), like the
> administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (*state,
> region, province, municipality, private*)
>
> Use operator=* ???
>
> and ad-hoc values as input for the router (*s**peed limits, traffic
> density, etc.*
>
>
> Rather than the density.. traffic speed could be more usefull? Example
> traffic_speed=20 @ 6:00-19:00 Mon-Fri , traffic_speed=15 @ 9:00-17:00
> Sat-Sun (yes, busier on the weekends!)
> *. *If no traffic_speed then routers use the max_speed..
>
> * *OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  *).
>
> Keep on going!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
>
> On 2019-02-25 22:10, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:
>
>
> I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
> administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5
> levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes,
> link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.
>
> So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential
> area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.
>
> So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember
> the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>
>
> It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind
> is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)
>
> However, some of the stuff on
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads
> I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like
> trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging