Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Eric Ladner]

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 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.
>
> It's perfectly reasonable to have an unpaved highway=secondary in
> rural areas, if that's one of the major roads around.
>
>

Agree. The OSM definintion of "track" is clear on this - "represents roads
for mostly agricultural use, forest tracks etc" and "Do not use tracks to
represent public unpaved roads in built-up areas". If it's an open road
with some kind of designation, then it's some level of highway, not a
track. Using a surface=* tag is crucial here.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Greg Troxel]

"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
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.

It's perfectly reasonable to have an unpaved highway=secondary in rural
areas, if that's one of the major roads around.

With respect to 'expressway', I would suggest that expressway is not a
useful term, because there is no agreed-on meaning.  The definition of
trunk is usually something that is fairly high speed (50 MPH ish),
mostly divided, and doesn't have that many at-grade intersections and
driveways.   Usually trunk roads feel like things are sort of heading to
being like interstates, but really aren't.

And definitely roads that are not interstates get tagged motorway, if
they meet the standards completely.  An example is Mass 2 inside 128 and
From just inside 495 west for many miles.  This is divided, on/off-ramps
only, no lights, no rotaries.  However, there is a section in between
that's mostly divided, with a light every few miles, and a few driveways
for businesses (but only 2 business driveways per mile, mostly).  It's
posted 45 and people go 60.  This feels like classic trunk, almost a
textbook definition.


pgpmwT6v1upxo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Johnson]

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.


I don't generally disagree with that, though there's often an overly
optimistic estimation about what a normal vehicle can traverse,
particularly in counties with basically no budget.  Abject neglect plays a
big factor with many unpaved section lines.  Heck, there's parking lots at
Roman Nose State Park that are notorious for breaking CV joins and oil
pans, and they're still expecting "regular vehicles" to use them (I've had
to park there with a Chevy Malibu and broken two CVs and got it high
centered once; and there's plenty of county roads I've had to traverse on
the job that I've got the same Malibu stuck so bad I've had to dig a bigger
hole to ramp out of it).  We're talking stuff that's on the public
inventory as either a destination (Roman Nose) or through route, ostensibly
there for your average midsize sedan, that just plain isn't well maintained
enough to be a practical (or sometimes even possible) option without it
being a last resort (risking getting stranded/severe damage/impassable) in
the normal course of practicing reasonable caution with someone who knows
what they're doing out there kind of situations.  Not necessarily like
Columbia County-end of Sauvie Island bad, where the roads just suck but at
least they're graded and graveled and you can do 40 on it without much
consequence, but more like Creek County, Oklahoma 30% grades with washouts
and no drainage type thing (and yes, I did actually live on such a "how is
this even road?" type tracks for a couple years).

With respect to 'expressway', I would suggest that expressway is not a
> useful term, because there is no agreed-on meaning.  The definition of
> trunk is usually something that is fairly high speed (50 MPH ish),
> mostly divided, and doesn't have that many at-grade intersections and
> driveways.   Usually trunk roads feel like things are sort of heading to
> being like interstates, but really aren't.
>

That's more or less the AASHTO definition right there. If it's partially
controlled and has a relatively high speed limit, that's pretty much
textbook AASHTO expressway.  Similar to how I view the WA 500 situation in
the City of Fort Vancouver, WA as well.

And definitely roads that are not interstates get tagged motorway, if
> they meet the standards completely.  An example is Mass 2 inside 128 and
> From just inside 495 west for many miles.  This is divided, on/off-ramps
> only, no lights, no rotaries.  However, there is a section in between
> that's mostly divided, with a light every few miles, and a few driveways
> for businesses (but only 2 business driveways per mile, mostly).  It's
> posted 45 and people go 60.  This feels like classic trunk, almost a
> textbook definition.
>

I agree with the tagging there looking at the aerial, since I presume
you're referring to Elm west of the Concorde Turnpike, and Cambridge
Turnpike east of Crosby's Corner (though it should be "MA" and not "SR", as
this helps orient people through disambiguation and some renderers using
shields that aren't route relation aware yet depend on a state postal
abbreviation for state highways to disambiguate it from another more minor
network).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Richard Fairhurst]

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
developed countries is that such roads are assumed paved unless otherwise
specified.

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-road-classification-disagreement-this-time-with-HFCS-in-Kansas-tp5854071p5855178.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Minh Nguyen]

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 pretty reasonable to me, except for some disconnected 
tertiaries in Fancy Creek State Park. [1]



There are a few places where I diverged from the map a bit. For
example the city of Riley has no collectors marked on the KDOT map but
I still bumped the main road through it to highway=tertiary. There
were a couple of places where I didn't really think an upgrade to
tertiary was warranted but at the time I just went with it anyway.


In cases like this, I would probably go with my own intuition. In places 
I've mapped, the DOT is less concerned about making a hierarchical map 
than about allocating funding based on the official route network. But 
it sounds like KDOT is really good about classifying based on the same 
criteria as us mappers, in which case HFCS makes for a great secondary 
source.


[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/295768204

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Johnson]

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 Kansas obviously connects
> mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just re-classed as trunk a
> few days ago) connects larger towns and cities.
>
> I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS:
>
> Interstate: Motorway
> Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk
> Principal Arterial: Trunk/Primary [1]
> Minor Arterial: Primary
> Major Collector: Secondary/Tertiary
> Minor Collector: Tertiary
>

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

If not one of the above, or prevailing overriding circumstances (like
additional capacity or lack of capacity) don't warrant a step up or down,
then:

US highway: Primary (which I might rank down in very rare circumstances)
State highway: Secondary (which I might rank down if it's part of a
supplemental state network or up if it forms a major (5+ lane) arterial.
County highway: Tertiary (which I might rank up to secondary or primary if
it's 3-5 or 5+ lane (such as, say, the section line roads in Tulsa) or down
if it doesn't have visible pavement markings or pavement)

Generally speaking, that's the TL;DR of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Johnson]

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. We must not
> tag *misleadingly* for a *specific* x. We absolutely should consider the
> needs of all x's in existence.
>

 I'd expand that to "don't tag for the government agency you're looking at"
as well.  Prevailing build standards and what network it belongs to tends
to be a greater (but not exclusive) influence (except for motorway and
trunk, which it's pretty well understood are special cases for exceptional
roads).
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Johnson]

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 to trunk a long time ago and I never
> felt that this was right and finally got around to changing it back.
> But tonight another user in Kansas commented on this changeset[1]
> saying that it should stay at trunk until it hits US 281 in western
> Kansas because it is classified as a "Principal Arterial" by the
> functional highway classification system (HFCS). And indeed, the HFCS
> page on the OSM wiki[2] does say that rural principal arterials should
> be tagged as trunk
>

I believe the wiki is wrong here.  HFCS certainly isn't the most important
aspect relative to OSM and is in conflict with other parts of the wiki that
properly reflect that trunks in the US are a step back from a
fully-controlled motorway.  And it wouldn't surprise me if this is causing
difficulty with some other editors as well that are taking that advise
exclusively given some other trunk issues we've had lately.  HFCS and some
state classifications tend to be less fine-nuanced than OSM's
classification, with the official classification tending to rank higher
than how it actually pieces in to the grand scheme of things: A tribe or
county authority might rank a cattle trail as primary while very few people
would say it's going to rank on the same level as undivided, uncontrolled
stretches of US 75 in the modern era.  (Go back about 80 years and you have
long stretches of Route 66 with only one lane paved or barely more than a
cattle trail even after the designation, but that was then, this is now).


> Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to taking some hints from an external
> source but my big problem with this particular case is that US 81
> (which US 24 intersects, at [3]) is also tagged as trunk. I don't
> think this classification is disputed by anyone. But US 81 and US 24
> are vastly different roads.
>

A quick examination of a ~5 mile stretch either way definitely around the
US 24/81 junction...I believe your current assessment that the two-lane
highway US 24 as primary and the four-lane, divided, partially controlled
expressway US 81 uses as trunk is a textbook example of both.


> 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 does have some (and hence is
> definitely not eligible for motorway tagging)
>

Indeed, US 81 is partially controlled (mix of grade separated interchanges
and at-grade junctions, driveways uncommon).

You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US
> 24[4] and US 81[5].
>
> In my opinion, if these two roads are tagged with the same
> classification then something is wrong with the classification system.
>

Well, hence my assessment that the wiki's wrong in this case; HFCS is only
looking at the system from a federal government perspective and in broad
strokes that miss some of the nuance.  HFCS doesn't always differentiate
between a partially controlled surface expressway like US 81 and a two lane
federal route like US 24; and I've seen instances where it ranks a state
highway that's fully controlled to interstate standards lower than OSM
would.  I don't exactly consider it any more trustworthy than TIGER.


> I'm not sure exactly what HFCS takes into consideration or who wrote
> that wiki page but this doesn't seem right to me. Can someone offer a
> defense of the wiki page or should it be changed?
>

I think a notice should definitely be added to this.  US road tagging entry
and it's talk page on the wiki also suggests that HFCS has been confusing
people, though I had thought this was mostly settled that anything fully
controlled meeting predominantly interstate standards is a motorway,
whereas partially controlled, or fully controlled but undivided (in both
case, what AASHTO geeks would call an expressway (edge case with motorway
if you want to keep alternating the tag every three blocks as in a US 81,
or WA 500 case) and in some (edge case with primary) parkways) would be
trunk.


> 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].
>

I would be hard pressed to find a reason to push most county roads past
unclassified (and many in bad or seasonal repair past track).


> As I noted in the changeset discussion, this led me to encounter a
> "Warning: road may flood" sign on a dirt road tagged as secondary
> which just seems crazy to me.
>

That'd be making the same mistake as NAVTEQ did in the 

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Richie Kennedy]

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 indicate that the trunk tag is *NOT* exclusively applied to 
limited access roads. e.g. the "US" entry in this table --  
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence


Surface expressway: A relatively high-speed divided road (at least 40 MPH 
with a barrier or median separating each direction of traffic), with a 
limited amount of intersections and driveways; **or** a major intercity 
highway. This includes many U.S. Highways (that do not parallel an 
Interstate) and some state highways.


[emphasis added]

Generally speaking, that's the TL;DR of 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging


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' 



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Johnson]

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 the wiki, there are multiple wiki sections (not just the HFCS
> page) that indicate that the trunk tag is *NOT* exclusively applied to
> limited access roads. e.g. the "US" entry in this table --
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#International_equivalence
>
> Surface expressway: A relatively high-speed divided road (at least 40 MPH
> with a barrier or median separating each direction of traffic), with a
> limited amount of intersections and driveways; **or** a major intercity
> highway. This includes many U.S. Highways (that do not parallel an
> Interstate) and some state highways.
>

Nice catch, that "or" statement should be removed.  It was added by
unilaterally by NE2 back in November 2012, when he was trying to ret-con a
nationwide, undiscussed and unilateral automated edit flipping 100% of
anything with ref=*US* to trunk if it wasn't already a motorway by changing
every wiki page discussing US usage of trunks (hence why it's such a PITA
tag now).
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dtrunk=833939=833922
 See also multiple megabytes of threads about this around the same time in
talk-us and tagging's archives, and a contributing factor as to why he's no
longer with the project.


> [emphasis added]
>
> Generally speaking, that's the TL;DR of
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
>>
>
> 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'


I'm not necessarily for or against doing so without having personal
experience in the area in particular, this is a NP-complete problem right
now.  Much of the poorly graded and gravelled ones in southern Kansas
(really roughly the 15 or 20 southernmost sections save for a few miles
around some of the moderately sized towns come to mind as potential track
candidates, south to at least the Canadian River from the Rockies to the
Ozarks.  In the unpaved county roads, seems like you've got a badly mapped
mixed bag of once-graded and gravelled section lines that haven't seen a
county truck since the commissioner that lived out there died 20 years ago,
to graded and packed gravel (and indistinguishable from a faded aging
asphalt road of far worse quality), to "did they just throw this at a map
and see what can climb this cliff?" washed-out wannabe cattle trails that
people still have to get in and out on, so it's going to take some elbow
grease to classify the pick-up sticks of "residential" TIGER left behind
and is still on revision=1.  Bonus is the aerials aren't quite high enough
resolution to tell what's going on without some on-the-ground context or a
feel for the area to piece the rest of it together (we're not talking about
Salinas, Wichita, Bartlesville or Woodward metro after all).  Mapping the
Big Empty is hard and takes a decent amount of exploration in really rural
places.  Which isn't to say it shouldn't be done, just that timeliness is
probably going to be an issue for a long time to come, partly in due to the
lack of affordable internet access at any speed in much of these locations
as well.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Toby Murray]

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/bureaus/burTransPlan/maps/county-pdf/riley.PDF

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

There are a few places where I diverged from the map a bit. For
example the city of Riley has no collectors marked on the KDOT map but
I still bumped the main road through it to highway=tertiary. There
were a couple of places where I didn't really think an upgrade to
tertiary was warranted but at the time I just went with it anyway. I
may go back and do some tweaking.

Overall I feel like this makes a reasonable road network. While
editing, I could often (although not always) see a visual difference
between the roads marked as collectors and those marked as "local
roads" on the KDOT map so it kind of provided a secondary source to
justify differing classifications.

Thoughts?

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> 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
> access, dual carriageway with a 70 MPH speed limit so I would probably
> bump it from secondary to trunk although I'm not sure I can come up
> with a reason why its current tag of motorway is wrong so... sure, I'm
> ok with that.
>
> Another exception: I downgraded US 24 to secondary and upgraded K-82
> to primary between Leonardville and Riley [2] because that leg of US
> 24 through Leonardville has a lower speed limit, no shoulder
> whatsoever and is just generally a less maintained road than K-82.
>
> I suppose there is some degree of subjectivity to the "adjust as
> needed" step and things won't always match up with government opinion
> but I feel like the end result is a better representation of how the
> roads are actually built and maintained in the real world.
>
> Toby
>
> [1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/38.9499/-95.0109
> [2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/39.3301/-96.8853

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Minh Nguyen]

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 mapping in 
Cincinnati, I encountered similar problems with highway classifications. 
There were `highway=secondary` ways that, in reality, are tree-lined 
residential roads with 25 mph speed limits, Child at Play signs, and 
unsignalized crosswalks. Presumably that's because they're designated 
"major collectors" in HFCS. Residents along those streets would probably 
disagree.


Parts of downtown San Francisco and downtown Houston consist entirely of 
`highway=primary` ways with a few `highway=service`s sprinkled in. That 
kind of classification doesn't seem incredibly useful for routing, and 
it makes it more difficult to establish a visual hierarchy when styling 
a map.


In the Cincinnati area, we reserved `secondary` for good cross-town 
roads, for consistency with `secondary` state routes in rural areas. We 
demoted a grand boulevard (Central Pky., an HFCS "principal arterial" 
that's part of three U.S. routes) from `primary` to `secondary`, because 
a nearby Interstate has long obsoleted it for cross-town travel.


As I recently argued in a diary entry [1], high road classifications, 
along with umbrella landuse areas, mean that potential contributors 
won't see a blank slate where they probably should (since there may be 
little other than streets). Can we tone down these cities a bit? I think 
it would help the project.


I've come to the same conclusion as NE2 [2] that we should classify 
roads "from scratch" on a case-by-case basis and only consider systems 
like HFCS as a hint, just as we treated the TIGER import's 
classifications as a starting point. We have enough information before 
us, including aerial imagery and the overall road topology, to 
contradict HFCS when necessary.


[1] 
[2] 

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[stevea]

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 should 
consider the needs of all x's in existence. [1]


+1, Minh.  Well said.  Succinct.  Timely.

SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Minh Nguyen]

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 should consider 
the needs of all x's in existence. [1]


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer

--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Richard Welty]

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 Central Kansas obviously
> connects mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just
> re-classed as trunk a few days ago) connects larger towns and cities.
>
> I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS:
>
using HFCS has never been a normal practice for OSM. i don't think it's
rational
to impose HFCS derived classification on the US road grid at this point
in time.

in any case, it is something that should be discussed before changing tags.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Toby Murray]

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
access, dual carriageway with a 70 MPH speed limit so I would probably
bump it from secondary to trunk although I'm not sure I can come up
with a reason why its current tag of motorway is wrong so... sure, I'm
ok with that.

Another exception: I downgraded US 24 to secondary and upgraded K-82
to primary between Leonardville and Riley [2] because that leg of US
24 through Leonardville has a lower speed limit, no shoulder
whatsoever and is just generally a less maintained road than K-82.

I suppose there is some degree of subjectivity to the "adjust as
needed" step and things won't always match up with government opinion
but I feel like the end result is a better representation of how the
roads are actually built and maintained in the real world.

Toby

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/38.9499/-95.0109
[2] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/39.3301/-96.8853

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Toby Murray]

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 and finally got around to changing it back.
But tonight another user in Kansas commented on this changeset[1]
saying that it should stay at trunk until it hits US 281 in western
Kansas because it is classified as a "Principal Arterial" by the
functional highway classification system (HFCS). And indeed, the HFCS
page on the OSM wiki[2] does say that rural principal arterials should
be tagged as trunk

Now, I'm not necessarily opposed to taking some hints from an external
source but my big problem with this particular case is that US 81
(which US 24 intersects, at [3]) is also tagged as trunk. I don't
think this classification is disputed by anyone. But US 81 and US 24
are vastly different roads.

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 does have some (and hence is
definitely not eligible for motorway tagging)

You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US
24[4] and US 81[5].

In my opinion, if these two roads are tagged with the same
classification then something is wrong with the classification system.
I'm not sure exactly what HFCS takes into consideration or who wrote
that wiki page but this doesn't seem right to me. Can someone offer a
defense of the wiki page or should it be changed?

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].

As I noted in the changeset discussion, this led me to encounter a
"Warning: road may flood" sign on a dirt road tagged as secondary
which just seems crazy to me.

Thoughts?

Toby

[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/33282153
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_Functional_Classification_System
[3] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/39.3638/-97.6710
[4] http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/yTCyYGiyodDhje5mk4CRBQ/photo
[5] http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/m3iNsipw17_jR0FJPWrcFQ/photo
[6] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=9/39.1162/-95.5811

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Norman]

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 does have some (and hence is
definitely not eligible for motorway tagging)

You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US
24[4] and US 81[5].


Based on this, it's unlikely the US 24 and US 81 serve the same 
classification in the road network, and should be different highway tags.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Richard Welty]

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 driveways and farm
>> access roads than US 81 although 81 does have some (and hence is
>> definitely not eligible for motorway tagging)
>>
>> You can clearly see the difference between the roads in Mapillary. US
>> 24[4] and US 81[5].
>
> Based on this, it's unlikely the US 24 and US 81 serve the same
> classification in the road network, and should be different highway tags.
>
i tend to agree. while the HFCS is worthwhile as an advisory, when it
differs
significantly from observation, we need to stick with what we see on the
ground.
i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for informational
purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[richiekennedy56]

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, whereas US 54 (which I had just re-classed as trunk a few days ago) 
connects larger towns and cities.


I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS:


Interstate: Motorway

Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk

Principal Arterial: Trunk/Primary [1]

Minor Arterial: Primary

Major Collector: Secondary/Tertiary

Minor Collector: Tertiary


[1] In rural areas, “Other Freeway and Expressway” is a subset of “Principal 
Arterial,” and may be marked on official state maps as the latter. If a roadway 
is fully controlled access, the Motorway tag should be used.


For urban areas, I would not make any major changes:

Interstate: Motorway

Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk

Principal Arterial: Primary

Minor Arterial: Secondary

Major Collector/Minor Collector: Tertiary


Generally, I have noticed that many urban roads will “drop class” when they 
transition into rural roads. Under the guidance above, most of these roadways 
will maintain a consistent type in OSM.


As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is frowned 
upon to tag for a routing engine. I would be happy to review the existing 
roadways myself to determine if they should be downgraded per any updated 
guidance; however, a bulk revert or manual cleanup without updated guidance 
will also be frowned upon.








From: Richard Fairhurst
Sent: ‎Sunday‎, ‎September‎ ‎6‎, ‎2015 ‎10‎:‎43‎ ‎AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list





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.

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]. 

Ye gods. That's horrid, and breaks every single car and bicycle router in
existence. Are those changesets cleanly revertable, or do we need a manual
fixup?

Richard___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Richard Fairhurst]

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.

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]. 

Ye gods. That's horrid, and breaks every single car and bicycle router in
existence. Are those changesets cleanly revertable, or do we need a manual
fixup?

Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-road-classification-disagreement-this-time-with-HFCS-in-Kansas-tp5854071p5854085.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Richard Fairhurst]

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 kind, if slightly patronising, concern.

Following international common practices is not tagging for the router, or
the renderer, or the autonomous self-guided robot or whatever. It is an
essential part of a mass collaborative project, and is the only way from
preventing OSM descending into an anarchy of local exceptions.

It is universal that, in developed countries such as the US, Canada or any
part of Western Europe, a highway=secondary is assumed paved _unless_ a
surface (or similar) tag is used.

Piling up local exceptions justified by obscure wiki pages (and, to be
honest, you can justify classifying US roads any old way given the morass of
contradictory wiki pages) makes for data that no-one can sanely use. I
probably do more post-processing of highway tags than anyone else and even I
draw the line at "if (highway=='secondary' && last_editor=='route56') {
surface=UNKNOWN; } else { surface=PAVED; }". This is a collaborative
project; it only works if we pull in the same direction.

Richard





--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Another-road-classification-disagreement-this-time-with-HFCS-in-Kansas-tp5854071p5854090.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us