I always tag based on the actual access control. At the end of a clear
freeway, continue the motorway tagging to the first intersection or
driveway, or if the road becomes single-carriageway and isn't a super-2 (a
controlled-access freeway in which only one carriageway is constructed with
I think this is a good general rule. In the instant case, the tagging should
change at the point where the grass median ends northbound, IMO. That marks a
definite change in the physical character of the road. I believe it was tagged
like that when the carriageways were first split after the
I'm not familiar with OSM routing, but these roads enter and cross some of
the most inhospitable mountainous terrain in the United States.
Some, like the 101 mile long Magruder Corridor (
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5109483.pdf ) are
only open a few months of the year,
What?! I haven't contradicted myself at all. I already said in my initial
response (the one that I sent to only you by mistake) that in cases where
there's an at grade intersection sandwiched in between two interchanges,
the road should be marked as trunk in between. Other than that case, a road
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild wrote:
> Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface
> intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's
> causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the
> first surface
On 11/28/2018 10:36 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south
of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I
don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.
If we're looking for a generalized rule,
In California some roads have signs that say “End Freeway”, about 1/2 mile
before the first intersection, eg I-8 in San Diego.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:04 PM Evin Fairchild wrote:
> Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface
> intersection. I don't understand what it
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface
intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's
causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first
surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should
change
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:36 PM Nathan Mills wrote:
> Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should
> be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease
> Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale
> should have been
Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be
tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension.
Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been
tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:00 PM Evin Fairchild wrote:
> I think you're misrepresenting the discussion. People are simply saying
> that the motorway destination should extend all the way to the first at
> grade intersection, rather than the interchange prior to the at grade
> intersection.
-- Forwarded message -
From: Evin Fairchild
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway
To: Paul Johnson
I think you're misrepresenting the discussion. People are simply saying
that the motorway destination should extend all the way to the
Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?
What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange
just looks weird.
Sorry, but I have to disagree, and would leave it as a motorway up to
Gilcrease, then trunk beyond that point.
For comparison, our
Can I get some voice of reason in
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426? There seems to be quite
a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to
propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is
obviously incorrect.
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel
> wrote:
>
> > I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
> > prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
> > page
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:58 AM Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> > When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a
> > ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field.
>
> I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 9:49 AM, Martijn van Exel
wrote:
> I think you are right. It would be good if we can arrive at a common
> prefix and document it on the wiki. 'FS' makes sense. Perhaps even a new
>
On 2018-11-28 06:49, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:07:45 -0800
Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 2018-11-28 01:57, Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number)
as a ref, since that is how they are
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:07:45 -0800
Minh Nguyen wrote:
> On 2018-11-28 01:57, Minh Nguyen wrote:
> > On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> >> When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number)
> >> as a ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field.
> >
> >
On 2018-11-28 01:57, Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 2018-11-20 08:57, Martijn van Exel wrote:
When I map these roads I include the FS number (just the number) as a
ref, since that is how they are signposted in the field.
I think the ref tag on the ways should have a prefix and not just
consist of a
20 matches
Mail list logo
