On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:59 AM Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> "Richie Kennedy" writes:
>
> > To me, "unpaved" includes gravel surfaced roads (which is the
> > predominant surface type of non-state highways in rural Kansas). I'm
> > not inclined to mark every gravel road in Kansas as 'track'
>
> Unpaved
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> On 2015-09-17 15:56, Toby Murray wrote:
>>
>> I went through and upgraded all roads marked as "Minor collectors" and
>> "Major collectors" from residential to tertiary. The result can best
>> be seen at zoom level 12:
>> http://www.openstreetma
On 2015-09-17 15:56, Toby Murray wrote:
I went through and upgraded all roads marked as "Minor collectors" and
"Major collectors" from residential to tertiary. The result can best
be seen at zoom level 12:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1070359#map=12/39.4386/-96.7724
This area looks pre
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Unpaved does not at all imply track. If it's a real road, open to the
> public, with a name, and expected to be used by normal vehicles, it's
> not a track. track is about something that is physically less than a
> proper (even unpaved) road
Greg Troxel wrote:
> It's perfectly reasonable to have an unpaved highway=secondary in
> rural areas, if that's one of the major roads around.
...with the proviso that it _must_ be tagged as surface=unpaved (or a more
detailed tag, such as surface=gravel or surface=dirt). Standard tagging in
deve
"Richie Kennedy" writes:
> To me, "unpaved" includes gravel surfaced roads (which is the
> predominant surface type of non-state highways in rural Kansas). I'm
> not inclined to mark every gravel road in Kansas as 'track'
Unpaved does not at all imply track. If it's a real road, open to the
p
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Richie Kennedy
wrote:
> I'm mostly with you on this, except, for the four lower classes, which
>> generally speaking the following observations with tagging have been true:
>>
>
> Interstate/Freeway (only): Motorway
>> Expressway (only): Trunk
>>
>
> As I read th
I'm mostly with you on this, except, for the four lower classes, which
generally speaking the following observations with tagging have been true:
Interstate/Freeway (only): Motorway
Expressway (only): Trunk
As I read the wiki, there are multiple wiki sections (not just the HFCS
page) that in
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Minh Nguyen
wrote:
> On 2015-09-06 09:49, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is
>> frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
>>
>
> There is often confusion about the "don't tag for the x" rule.
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, wrote:
> I am the editor in question.
>
> The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do
> not necessarily agree.
>
> However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may
> warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kan
On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
> Sorry to start another thread on this but I just had an exchange with
> another mapper here in Kansas that could use some more opinions.
>
> I recently reclassified US 24 west of Manhattan, KS from trunk down to
> primary. NE2 had bumped it up
I decided to use my county and just go retag a bunch of roads. Most of
the roads outside of the city that aren't highways were still
highway=residential from the TIGER import. I found this map on the
KDOT website (which I have permission to use as a source):
http://www.ksdot.org/Assets/wwwksdotorg/
On 2015-09-06 01:24, Toby Murray wrote:
This user has also upgraded a lot of unpaved county roads in eastern
Kansas to secondary because of HFCS which also strikes me as wrong.
You can clearly see where he has done this at zoom level 9 [6].
When I started mapping in San Jose, CA, after years of
On 2015-09-06 09:49, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
As to Mr. Fairhurst's comment regarding routing, I'll remind you it is
frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
There is often confusion about the "don't tag for the x" rule. We
must not tag *misleadingly* for a *specific* x. We absolutely
On 2015-09-06 09:49,
richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is
frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
There is often confusion about the "don't tag for the x" rule. We must
not tag *misleadingly* for a *specific* x. We absolutely
My general rule of thumb for highway tagging in rural Kansas is as
follows. If I know nothing else about the road I start off with US
highway = primary, Kansas highway = secondary and county roads =
tertiary. Then adjust as needed.
For example. K-10 between Lawrence and Olathe [1] is controlled
ac
On 9/6/15 12:49 PM, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am the editor in question.
>
> The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I
> do not necessarily agree.
>
> However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification
> may warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in
Richie Kennedy wrote:
> As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you
> it is frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
Given that Mr Fairhurst has been involved in OSM since month 4 in 2004, he
is quite aware of what is frowned upon and what isn't, but he thanks you for
your
I am the editor in question.
The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do not
necessarily agree.
However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may warrant
a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously connects mainly smaller
towns, wher
Richard Welty wrote:
> i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for
> informational purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification.
In the UK we use the designation= tag to record official classifications
which might not be reflected in the highway type - I'd commend it.
On 9/6/15 6:26 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 9/6/2015 1:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>> US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders
>> US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10
>> foot shoulders
>>
>> I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random dri
On 9/6/2015 1:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders
US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10
foot shoulders
I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random driveways and farm
access roads than US 81 although 81
Sorry to start another thread on this but I just had an exchange with
another mapper here in Kansas that could use some more opinions.
I recently reclassified US 24 west of Manhattan, KS from trunk down to
primary. NE2 had bumped it up to trunk a long time ago and I never
felt that this was right
23 matches
Mail list logo
