Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/29 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com: On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:58 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: I wonder if this definition which was formerly part of the description for highway=unclassified is still valid: I love it when people are brave enough to question the semantics of very frequently used tags. If others change the definitions in the wiki for those intensely used tags cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] wrote on 29. July 2011 14:55 If others change the definitions in the wiki for those intensely used tags ... there's a high probability that this will render OSM data inappropriate for serious use. Willi ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
On 7/29/2011 7:21 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I think the underlying problem is that there's a big gap between tertiary, which should be a road that really is used to go somewhere and residential, which more or less means a road that you wouldn't care about unless you destination is on or very near it. Here's an example: http://osm.org/go/ZfI4NgRo- There are way too many roads marked secondary (most of those are not state highways, or as important as state highways), yet the secondaries are more important than the tertiaries, and the tertiaries are more important than the residentials. That looks fine, except for the lack of primaries. You can see how I've handled Orlando (obviously there will be differences in older cities like Boston-Cambridge): http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5419lon=-81.3793zoom=14layers=M ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
I think that this cannot be discussed here. This has to be done locally. In Belgium, primary roads are roads with a reference in the form of an N or R followed by one or two numbers. The reference of a secondary road contains one letter and three numbers and a tertiary has no reference but has at least two lanes. Speed limits can go from 30 kmh to 90 kmh. A residential road is one in a village or city center with one lane, where there is a speed limit of 50 kmh or less and an unclassified road is a road with one lane in the countryside. Unclassified roads have a speed limit of 90 kmh but only very good (or very bad) drivers can reach that limit. This tagging schema may be rubbish in other parts of the world, but it works good in Belgium. So what I suggest is to put clear links to the local communities on the highway page. And give a good local definition of those highway types on the local community pages. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com writes: On 7/29/2011 7:21 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I think the underlying problem is that there's a big gap between tertiary, which should be a road that really is used to go somewhere and residential, which more or less means a road that you wouldn't care about unless you destination is on or very near it. Here's an example: http://osm.org/go/ZfI4NgRo- There are way too many roads marked secondary (most of those are not state highways, or as important as state highways), yet the secondaries are more important than the tertiaries, and the tertiaries are more important than the residentials. That looks fine, except for the lack of primaries. You can see how I've handled Orlando (obviously there will be differences in older cities like Boston-Cambridge): I don't follow - the only US highway visible is primary, and then a vast number of roads are tagged as secondary. None of the secondary roads are so high traffic or important to merit being called primaries. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.5419lon=-81.3793zoom=14layers=M I'm guessing the primaries that aren't us highways have comparable importance, and there aren't that many of them, so that seems fine. (The area I pointed out is a boring residential town that no one would drive through if they were going more than a few towns.) pgpJXMBwsK865.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
On 7/29/2011 9:17 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com writes: On 7/29/2011 7:21 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: I think the underlying problem is that there's a big gap between tertiary, which should be a road that really is used to go somewhere and residential, which more or less means a road that you wouldn't care about unless you destination is on or very near it. Here's an example: http://osm.org/go/ZfI4NgRo- There are way too many roads marked secondary (most of those are not state highways, or as important as state highways), yet the secondaries are more important than the tertiaries, and the tertiaries are more important than the residentials. That looks fine, except for the lack of primaries. You can see how I've handled Orlando (obviously there will be differences in older cities like Boston-Cambridge): I don't follow - the only US highway visible is primary, and then a vast number of roads are tagged as secondary. None of the secondary roads are so high traffic or important to merit being called primaries. If all the secondaries are of equal importance, what's wrong with keeping them all secondary? If not, bump up some of the more important ones. From my limited knowledge of the area, Route 60 might make a good primary, as would Mass Ave (despite not being a great through route, it's the main road through central Cambridge). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/28 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Then I can't honestly grasp what this interconnecting network is. Or rather, I think I understand what you mean, but you're not defining it - you're describing it with a vague term. to make this clear: the term we are discussing about is not from me, and as I wrote before: if we can find a better term I would be glad to use that instead. connected. You are saying, basically, if I get it right, that an unclassified is a way that is connected to (and connects) streets of a certain importance +1 - and I agree to that - while, e.g., a residential is only connected to other residentials and/or to the occasional bigger way. a residential road might also be connected on both ends to bigger ways but still itself not be suitable to serve as a general connection. But, of course, this isn't a definition. How important should the connected streets be? How important should the street itself be? that's relative to the surroundings and will not be easily coverable by a general definition - I would omit that part. In a grid-like city, there will be a bunch of parallel streets connecting Large Avenue A to Great Street B; why would a few of those be unclassified's and other residential's? maybe they would all be unclassifieds? Or maybe the turning restrictions and traffic calming and oneway situation would make some of them going through and others effectively not? I would just describe it as a street that, in a urban environment, is used by people to go from a neighbourhood to another neighbourhood. A residential is used mainly by local inhabitants to reach a specific address; an unclassified is a, what's the term?, a passing road? I'm not a native English speaker either, so here some help with the words would be appreciated :-) connecting road ? In the country, it's not the main road you would use to go from town A to town B (that one would be a tertiary), nor it's supposed to be used only by agricultural vehicles (that one would be a track). I don't know if we have to include countryside and urban environment in the definition. (IMHO for a general definition this doesn't matter). I'd say: It is the lowest form of a connection road. Below tertiary roads. All the rest of the wiki page (explanations that unclassified is a classification, examples, ...) could go to the following paragraphs. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
If there was any practical difference between residential and unclassified, the TIGER import ignored that in the US by using residential for everything unimportant. So when I map I treat residential as unclassified with mainly residential abutters, and will sometimes change TIGER residentials to unclassified if they're clearly not residential. But there's definitely no difference in where they fit in the classification in the US. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
On 27/07/2011 22:37, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/7/27 Simone Saviolosimone.savi...@gmail.com: 2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com Maybe I'm being picky. What I mean is: we have a worldwide graph of roads, or a network if we want to call it that. A grid network, to me, sounds like an orthogonal grid, like the one you'd find in Torino or New York. no, I don't think that this was intended Of course, the roads are interconnecting, otherwise it wouldn't be a network. I thought this was a common term in English, but as I am not a native speaker I might be wrong Residential roads connect, too: they form a graph whose edges may be less important than the other bigger ways, but they're still part of the graph, just like tracks and footways. They are part of the road graph, but not of the interconnecting network, that is what this sentence is about All roads are interconnected where they join into each other. To me interconnecting grid network is, essentially, three words to describe the same thing. Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=unclassified
I wonder if this definition which was formerly part of the description for highway=unclassified is still valid: Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. It was removed here (Tidying up the struck bits): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dunclassifiedoldid=316530 cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com I wonder if this definition which was formerly part of the description for highway=unclassified is still valid: Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network. It was removed here (Tidying up the struck bits): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dunclassifiedoldid=316530 IMHO, it's a sentence that is both unclear and wrong. Interconnecting grid network has no significance: if it wasn't interconnecting it wouldn't be a network, and a grid network is just a specific case of a network but the unclassified applies to any kind of network. Also, highway=unclassified is not the lowest degree: there's highway=residential in any kind of urban centre, and highway=track in the country. The sentence may be good if that interconnecting grid network was clarified. For example, one could consider the highway=unclassified ways to be the lowest degree for roads that are not used (almost) exclusively by the locals. In that sense, it would be a sort of lesser tertiary when defining the structure of the road graph in a urban area. My two cents. cheers, Martin Regards, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: IMHO, it's a sentence that is both unclear and wrong. Interconnecting grid network has no significance: if it wasn't interconnecting it wouldn't be a network, and a grid network is just a specific case of a network but the unclassified applies to any kind of network. I can't follow you here, maybe it's a language problem? Grid network is not used to distinguish different network types, there is only one grid road network=all the connection roads in the world. To me that sentence makes perfectly sense. If I had to explain in other words what it means I'd say: unclassified are the lowest kind of connection roads in the road network. Also, highway=unclassified is not the lowest degree: there's highway=residential in any kind of urban centre, and highway=track in the country. that's what the above sentence implies: residentials and tracks are not part of the interconnecting grid network. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: IMHO, it's a sentence that is both unclear and wrong. Interconnecting grid network has no significance: if it wasn't interconnecting it wouldn't be a network, and a grid network is just a specific case of a network but the unclassified applies to any kind of network. I can't follow you here, maybe it's a language problem? Grid network is not used to distinguish different network types, there is only one grid road network=all the connection roads in the world. To me that sentence makes perfectly sense. If I had to explain in other words what it means I'd say: unclassified are the lowest kind of connection roads in the road network. Maybe I'm being picky. What I mean is: we have a worldwide graph of roads, or a network if we want to call it that. A grid network, to me, sounds like an orthogonal grid, like the one you'd find in Torino or New York. Of course, the roads are interconnecting, otherwise it wouldn't be a network. Residential roads connect, too: they form a graph whose edges may be less important than the other bigger ways, but they're still part of the graph, just like tracks and footways. Again, maybe I'm just being picky, but if we can come up with a definition that is clear and not an apparent collection of words, all the better. Also, highway=unclassified is not the lowest degree: there's highway=residential in any kind of urban centre, and highway=track in the country. that's what the above sentence implies: residentials and tracks are not part of the interconnecting grid network. As stated above, I disagree. They may only be connecting my block to the local grocery store, but they still connect. One may object that an unclassified road does not connect because it doesn't link two neighbour cities. Interconnecting is vague and ambiguous. cheers, Martin Ciao, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) - without being too country-specific. I'm not sure that the deleted sentence is particularly helpful, so I'd leave it out on the keep-it-simple principle. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: 2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com Maybe I'm being picky. What I mean is: we have a worldwide graph of roads, or a network if we want to call it that. A grid network, to me, sounds like an orthogonal grid, like the one you'd find in Torino or New York. no, I don't think that this was intended Of course, the roads are interconnecting, otherwise it wouldn't be a network. I thought this was a common term in English, but as I am not a native speaker I might be wrong Residential roads connect, too: they form a graph whose edges may be less important than the other bigger ways, but they're still part of the graph, just like tracks and footways. They are part of the road graph, but not of the interconnecting network, that is what this sentence is about Again, maybe I'm just being picky, but if we can come up with a definition that is clear and not an apparent collection of words, all the better. yes, if you have something better to propose we can use that. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) - Yes, but on the other hand deleting the cited part changed the definition and made it more difficult to differentiate between unclassified and residential. IMHO lower end of the interconnection grid network was very clear, but the current state is a longish and almost unstructured page of text, even including some country specific hints, and a very general short description: Public access road, non-residential. I think that every feature should have a clear definition in 1 (max. 3) sentence(s). All the examples and other particularities can go in different paragraphs, but should not be required to understand the point. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unclassified cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
The problem is that it ain't that simple. Quite a lot of unclassifieds don't go anywhere much, and aren't really part of the connected network. An unclassified isn't necessarily higher in the hierarchy than a residential. On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:51 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/7/27 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: When I had a go at re-writing it, I tried to give some clarity on the boundaries with adjacent values (residential, tertiary, track) - Yes, but on the other hand deleting the cited part changed the definition and made it more difficult to differentiate between unclassified and residential. IMHO lower end of the interconnection grid network was very clear, but the current state is a longish and almost unstructured page of text, even including some country specific hints, and a very general short description: Public access road, non-residential. I think that every feature should have a clear definition in 1 (max. 3) sentence(s). All the examples and other particularities can go in different paragraphs, but should not be required to understand the point. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Unclassified cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=unclassified
2011/7/27 M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2011/7/27 Simone Saviolo simone.savi...@gmail.com: Of course, the roads are interconnecting, otherwise it wouldn't be a network. I thought this was a common term in English, but as I am not a native speaker I might be wrong Neither am I. Can someone confirm what this interconnected is supposed to mean? With the arguable exclusion of dead-end roads, I would call any street in the world a part of an interconnected network. Even more, I would only exclude islands in the graph. Residential roads connect, too: they form a graph whose edges may be less important than the other bigger ways, but they're still part of the graph, just like tracks and footways. They are part of the road graph, but not of the interconnecting network, that is what this sentence is about Then I can't honestly grasp what this interconnecting network is. Or rather, I think I understand what you mean, but you're not defining it - you're describing it with a vague term. As I said, if a way meets other ways at both ends, or in at least two of its points (I would even say in at least one of its points), that way is connected. So, if it's not an island, it's connected. You are saying, basically, if I get it right, that an unclassified is a way that is connected to (and connects) streets of a certain importance - and I agree to that - while, e.g., a residential is only connected to other residentials and/or to the occasional bigger way. But, of course, this isn't a definition. How important should the connected streets be? How important should the street itself be? In a grid-like city, there will be a bunch of parallel streets connecting Large Avenue A to Great Street B; why would a few of those be unclassified's and other residential's? Again, maybe I'm just being picky, but if we can come up with a definition that is clear and not an apparent collection of words, all the better. yes, if you have something better to propose we can use that. I would just describe it as a street that, in a urban environment, is used by people to go from a neighbourhood to another neighbourhood. A residential is used mainly by local inhabitants to reach a specific address; an unclassified is a, what's the term?, a passing road? I'm not a native English speaker either, so here some help with the words would be appreciated :-) In the country, it's not the main road you would use to go from town A to town B (that one would be a tertiary), nor it's supposed to be used only by agricultural vehicles (that one would be a track). cheers, Martin Cheers, Simone ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
