.
-Original Message-
From: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Alan Mintz
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 5:12 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging
At 2010-03-04
On 12 March 2010 08:44, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote:
One of the national road that I used regularly
in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would
consider to just a secondary road to a primary road
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:31:19 +, Emilie Laffray wrote:
One of the national road that I used regularly
in France (N154) is very interesting as you go from what you would
consider to just a secondary road to a primary road and back to a
secondary road in some locations. The route is giving
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
How so? I said motorway and/or trunk roads. Any roads which don't
qualify as motorways would be trunks.
But expressways are trunks. Can you provide an example of an expressway
that isn't paved and isn't divided?
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:39:15 -0500, Anthony wrote:
If bicycles aren't prohibited, it's not a
motorway.
Then most of the US doesn't have motorways, by your definition; an idea
I'm pretty sure most would find to be absurdist.
___
Talk-us mailing
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
How so? I said motorway and/or trunk roads. Any roads which don't
qualify as motorways would be trunks.
But expressways are trunks.
All of them? If you say so.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:37:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
How so? I said motorway and/or trunk roads. Any roads which don't
qualify as motorways would be
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:40:47 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony
o...@inbox.org wrote:
The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this: *Motorways
are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic. *trunks are the most important
roads in a geographic area which
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:21:17 -0500, Anthony wrote:
Yeah. Motorway is simple. A road designated exclusively for motor
vehicles.
That's not true for most of America (as only 23 states prohibit bicycles
and
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by work differently. The laws of different
states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the
map is different. The maps, therefore, are going to be
On 7 March 2010 10:46, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. I
don't know about you, but I don't expect the same map to work
differently in the UK than it does in Canada, or in Canada
differently from the US. So why should
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by work differently. The laws of different
states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by
the
map is different. The maps, therefore, are going to
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
The important, worldwide criteria that I'd expect is this:
*Motorways are exclusive to motor vehicle traffic.
*trunks are the most important roads in a geographic area which aren't
motorways.
As a corollary to this, Alaska should
Anthony wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
network a particular road belongs to.
Freeway expressway =
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Yeah. Motorway is simple. A road designated exclusively for motor
vehicles. The rest should probably be handled on a state by state basis.
Europe doesn't have a single tagging scheme for all of its
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
though all of them are in Alaska.
wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
How do those get tagged? highway=trunk, surface=dirt, divided=no ?
On 3/7/10 11:19 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Bill Ricker bill.n1...@gmail.com
mailto:bill.n1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org
mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I can think of several interstates that
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
yes, please osm is an international project
When objectively describing the features on
Hi,
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
yes, please osm is an international project
I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that
comes at a price, and one has to carefully think about whether it makes
Anthony wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by work differently. The laws of different
states are different, so the information which needs to be presented by the
map is different. The maps, therefore, are going to be different. I
wouldn't expect the same map to work differently in
Bill Ricker wrote:
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:45 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I can think of several interstates that are unpaved and undivided,
though all of them are in Alaska.
wow that's news to me. Are they limited access ?
No, not outside Anchorage, and even then,
Richard Welty wrote:
probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be found
in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
because they're state highways?
I would say so. There's the surface tag, too... surface=gravel,
surface=unpaved...
On 7 Mar 2010, at 11:59 , Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency.
yes, please osm is an international project
I agree that worldwide consistency is good, however it is a target that comes
at a price,
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 16:08, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Richard Welty wrote:
probably a better example are the unpaved state highways that may be
found
in some parts of New Hampshire. they do have signage, are they secondary
because they're state highways?
I would say so.
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:28 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I think it would be better if greater weight were given to what
network a particular road belongs to.
Freeway expressway = motorway or trunk,
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
didn't know this page exists.
Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some deviations
will make sense here and there.
I suppose adding tags for cfcc and hfcs makes sense as an addition to
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:38 PM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
I see three dimensions of road classification at play here.
1) System
2) Function
3) Observed Character
System is the easy one. That is the road system(s) that that the road belongs
to especially for
On 5 Mar 2010, at 3:29 , Richard Weait wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM, Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com
wrote:
didn't know this page exists.
Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some
deviations will make sense here and there.
I suppose adding tags
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 10:45 AM, McGuire, Matthew
matt.mcgu...@metc.state.mn.us wrote:
The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of
roads.
This would at least tie it to an existing US standard.
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/appendxe.asc
This designation
would like to see all three dimensions.
Matt
-Original Message-
From: David ``Smith'' [mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM
To: McGuire, Matthew
Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles
-Original Message-
From: David ``Smith'' [mailto:vidthe...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 9:33 AM
To: McGuire, Matthew
Cc: Nathan Edgars II; talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road
tagging
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010
At 2010-03-04 09:38, McGuire, Matthew wrote:
...
A road's Observed Character is what kind of road it appears to be to a
person on the road. For general purpose maps, using observed character to
classify the roads intends to match a person expectations to what they see
on the ground. Character
didn't know this page exists.
Fully agreed this is the best way to do. It's not perfect and some deviations
will make sense here and there.
On 4 Mar 2010, at 15:37 , Kevin Samples wrote:
Hi,
I am a proponent of using the Highway Functional Classification System,
which Alan has described
: talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:talk-us-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Nathan Edgars II
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:19 PM
To: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging
I'm proposing a couple first principles
:00 PM
To: McGuire, Matthew
Cc: Nathan Edgars II; Talk Openstreetmap; Dave Hansen
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] proposed first principles for United States road tagging
On 3 Mar 2010, at 7:45 , McGuire, Matthew wrote:
The US Census Feature Class Code has descriptions of most types types of
roads
35 matches
Mail list logo
