Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
To be prescriptive, the best way is to make a proposal, discuss it, and vote on it. While this is usually done on the international Tagging mailing list, I've seen that the Japanese community has done formal proposals to discuss how a tag should be used in Japan specifically. We could consider something like that if we want to suggest a better way to define highway=trunk in the USA, especially since this tag is used several different ways, in different countries currently. -Joseph On 8/30/19, stevea wrote: > On August 29, 2019 at 8:08:08 AM PDT, Bradley White > wrote: >> I'm on the same page with Steve that describing how tagging currently *is* >> used and >> debating over how tagging might be better used, should be kept separate. > > Kind of you to say so. I (and others) often find it useful to distinguish > these as "descriptive" (how tagging IS used/done) vs. "prescriptive" (how > tagging SHOULD BE used/done). Sometimes in the wiki, sometimes in talk. > > Often, it is helpful to be DEscriptive, as in "this is what we do (now)." > Much less often, and best when this is made quite clear, it MIGHT be helpful > to be PREscriptive, though let's be careful how we "prescribe" how "this is > how it ought to be." > > SteveA > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On August 29, 2019 at 8:08:08 AM PDT, Bradley White wrote: > I'm on the same page with Steve that describing how tagging currently *is* > used and > debating over how tagging might be better used, should be kept separate. Kind of you to say so. I (and others) often find it useful to distinguish these as "descriptive" (how tagging IS used/done) vs. "prescriptive" (how tagging SHOULD BE used/done). Sometimes in the wiki, sometimes in talk. Often, it is helpful to be DEscriptive, as in "this is what we do (now)." Much less often, and best when this is made quite clear, it MIGHT be helpful to be PREscriptive, though let's be careful how we "prescribe" how "this is how it ought to be." SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
> Also language introduced by NE2 when he changed the wiki to justify his own > national mass edit on the US highways. If all this language was added unilaterally by NE2, can we find the specific wiki edits that they made and roll them back? I'm on the same page with Steve that describing how tagging currently *is* used and debating over how tagging might be better used, should be kept separate. > Feels like conflating expressways and primaries. Certainly, relative to current tag usage, which is why I'm debating current tag usage. If 'highway' is supposed to, fundamentally, denote importance (Proposed_features/Highway_key_voting_importance), it seems to me that there's a big difference in importance between a highway that connects population centers of ca. 10,000+ (current primary usage as described in United_States_roads_tagging), and a highway connecting population centers of ca. 100,000+ (Vegas to Boise, Reno to Redding, etc), regardless of the physical condition of the road. Conversely, it seems strange to use such a tag as high in the hierarchy as 'trunk' for a fairly minor state highway that is otherwise 'secondary', simply because the highway turns divided. I can sympathize with many mappers, especially newer ones, not understanding what to do with 'trunk'. It is probable that this 'strangeness' is due to rendering choices in osm-carto, but it's been made clear that country-specific rendering is logistically near-impossible and won't be happening. I've thought about putting together a US-specific style that uses highway ref as a factor in rendering, so that highways that are properly tagged per OSM standards show up as one might "expect" them to on a US map. But I certainly can't afford to host a tile server right now. I'd be much more on-board with the 'trunk' = 'expressway' thing (been halfway there for a bit) if the following happened: - Removal of "important highway where no motorway exists" or equivalent verbiage from wiki tagging guidelines. If this was added unilaterally by one editor, it should be removed regardless. - Rewriting 'trunk' section of US road tagging guidelines, with a section on understanding the concept of access control, and including multiple photographed examples of different kinds of expressways with descriptions. I'd be happy to help contribute to this. - Systematic review of 'primary' use in the US - if this is going to mean 'nationally important road', there shouldn't be things like nearly every state highway being tagged 'primary', or downtown areas filled to the brim with 'primary' (Houston and LA as particularly egregious examples), or 'primary' roads that almost exactly parallel an interstate (the interstate is the primary road!). I have been working on this in California for a while, but it usually quite time-consuming - many roads have been inappropriately bumped up so they cut through the TIGER mess, when in reality it's the TIGER mess that needs to be cleaned up first. > Feels like conflating expressways and primaries. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
Vermont has at least two state highways that are partially or entirely gravel, too. On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 10:20 AM Wolfgang Zenker wrote: > * Paul Johnson [190829 14:09]: > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > >> the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > >> reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > >> sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > >> standards. > > > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > > highways. > > Many (if not most) of Montanas "Secondary State Highways" are gravel. > > Wolfgang > ( lyx @ OSM ) > > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > -- Kevin Broderick k...@kevinbroderick.com ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
* Paul Johnson [190829 14:09]: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: >> That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska >> the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a >> reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes >> sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German >> standards. > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways. Many (if not most) of Montanas "Secondary State Highways" are gravel. Wolfgang ( lyx @ OSM ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 8:11 AM Paul Johnson wrote: > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways. Not just southern Alaska. It's kind of hard to pave over permafrost, so there's a lot of gravel Up North as well. Used to be that most of the AlCan Highway was gravel. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > standards. > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state highways. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 11:41 PM Bradley White wrote: > > For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > > upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic > > leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. > > I did this a year or two ago, then changed it back following the > previous time this discussion came up last year. Someone else has > recently changed it back to trunk in its entirety as you describe (as > well as US 395, CA 70); I explained in a changeset comment that the > "major intercity highway where no motorway exists" definition (per > Highway:International_equivalence) is contentious and not commonly > used, but that I have no plans on reverting their changes. > Also language introduced by NE2 when he changed the wiki to justify his own national mass edit on the US highways. > Caltrans doesn't appear to have "divided" as a requirement for an > expressway build, or even necessarily a freeway (See:(California) > State Highway Map 2005; David Rumsey Map Collection) - these terms are > used to describe the level of access control on a given highway. US > 101 through Redwood Ntl Park is signed with "Freeway Entrance" and is > fully access controlled, but is an undivided 4-lane road. Many 2-lane, > undivided roads are considered expressways in California, for example: > - Vasco Road connecting Antioch & Livermore > - Portions of CA 4 west of Angels Camp > - CA 108 east of Sonora (fully access controlled 2-lane road) > > Once you know what to look for - reduced access to adjacent > properties, smoothed road geometry (esp. when bypassing old highways), > hard shoulders, usually 65 mph - they aren't too hard to differentiate > from conventional 2-lane highways with no access control. Where these > are obvious I generally tag them as trunk roads as opposed to primary. > Specifically in the case of CA 108, I reject that a fully access > controlled two-lane road is anything less than a trunk, if we have > decided to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway'. California doesn't use > AASHTO definitions so I won't either. > I think that generally fits what would be tagged as a trunk as well (fully access controlled but single carriageway and AASHTO's definition). > Reno, NV has a couple urban arteries that straddle the divide between > trunk and primary (specifically: McCarran Blvd/NV 659, Pyramid Hwy/NV > 445 north of McCarran, Veterans Pkwy, foothills portion of Mt. Rose > Hwy/NV 431). These roads carry traffic at speeds higher than other > nearby arteries (45-55 mph as opposed to 40 mph). They are built to > the highest level of access control specified by Washoe RTC - > generally no direct access to properties, except for retail/commercial > areas (where access is quite frequent), or rural areas where no other > roads provide access to properties. They range from undivided w/ > center turn lane to divided with concrete jersey barriers & headlight > blinders (similar to a freeway). The majority of these roadways have > bike lanes, and many have sidewalks. They are quite similar to San > Jose's expressway system, except for a lack of grade-separated > interchanges. Are these primary, or trunk? I don't really know. They > currently sit at an awkward mix of trunk and primary depending on how > definitively myself and others think they are "expressways" or not. > I'd probably consider those as expressways. > I don't deny that "divided highway with partial control of access" is > a rigorous definition, with which it is certainly possible to tag > unambiguously with. I just question whether it is a good choice in the > US to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway' in the same way that 'motorway' > means 'freeway', when the US has a formal freeway system, but lacks a > formal expressway system. Most other countries that also lack a formal > expressway system do not use the trunk/expressway definition (UK, > Canada, etc). In my area, sticking strictly to "divided highway with > partial control of access" means very few highways at all will see > 'trunk' tagging. Certainly, this reflects what's on the ground here if > we use this definition - but why use a definition that either has to > be used ambiguously or seldom at all? > > I support orthogonalizing expressways & trunk by using > 'expressway=yes/no' for access control (maybe > access_control=full/partial/no?), 'highway=trunk' to mean non-freeway > road with national-level importance, and using 'oneway' to denote > whether a highway is divided or not. Then let rendering decide how to > draw the road from there. Want to see formal expressways drawn > separately? 'Expressway=yes' & 'oneway=yes'. Want a more general view > of the most important US highways? 'Highway=trunk'. > Feels like conflating expressways and primaries. ___
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On 29.08.19 05:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd > like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. > > I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and > expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=, > maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using > highway=trunk for this. > > Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was > originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network. > While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in > each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to > have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in > sparsely-populated parts of the country. Or see "Route 1" in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Is:Map_Features#Ways. "Route 1 ... is tagged as highway=trunk due to its significance as a trunk road covering the entire country." Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_1_(Iceland) : "Many smaller bridges are single lane, especially in eastern Iceland, and are constructed of wood or steel. The road is paved with asphalt for almost all of its length, but there is still a short stretch in eastern Iceland with unpaved gravel surface." ... -- Rihards ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
> For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic > leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. I did this a year or two ago, then changed it back following the previous time this discussion came up last year. Someone else has recently changed it back to trunk in its entirety as you describe (as well as US 395, CA 70); I explained in a changeset comment that the "major intercity highway where no motorway exists" definition (per Highway:International_equivalence) is contentious and not commonly used, but that I have no plans on reverting their changes. Caltrans doesn't appear to have "divided" as a requirement for an expressway build, or even necessarily a freeway (See:(California) State Highway Map 2005; David Rumsey Map Collection) - these terms are used to describe the level of access control on a given highway. US 101 through Redwood Ntl Park is signed with "Freeway Entrance" and is fully access controlled, but is an undivided 4-lane road. Many 2-lane, undivided roads are considered expressways in California, for example: - Vasco Road connecting Antioch & Livermore - Portions of CA 4 west of Angels Camp - CA 108 east of Sonora (fully access controlled 2-lane road) Once you know what to look for - reduced access to adjacent properties, smoothed road geometry (esp. when bypassing old highways), hard shoulders, usually 65 mph - they aren't too hard to differentiate from conventional 2-lane highways with no access control. Where these are obvious I generally tag them as trunk roads as opposed to primary. Specifically in the case of CA 108, I reject that a fully access controlled two-lane road is anything less than a trunk, if we have decided to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway'. California doesn't use AASHTO definitions so I won't either. Reno, NV has a couple urban arteries that straddle the divide between trunk and primary (specifically: McCarran Blvd/NV 659, Pyramid Hwy/NV 445 north of McCarran, Veterans Pkwy, foothills portion of Mt. Rose Hwy/NV 431). These roads carry traffic at speeds higher than other nearby arteries (45-55 mph as opposed to 40 mph). They are built to the highest level of access control specified by Washoe RTC - generally no direct access to properties, except for retail/commercial areas (where access is quite frequent), or rural areas where no other roads provide access to properties. They range from undivided w/ center turn lane to divided with concrete jersey barriers & headlight blinders (similar to a freeway). The majority of these roadways have bike lanes, and many have sidewalks. They are quite similar to San Jose's expressway system, except for a lack of grade-separated interchanges. Are these primary, or trunk? I don't really know. They currently sit at an awkward mix of trunk and primary depending on how definitively myself and others think they are "expressways" or not. I don't deny that "divided highway with partial control of access" is a rigorous definition, with which it is certainly possible to tag unambiguously with. I just question whether it is a good choice in the US to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway' in the same way that 'motorway' means 'freeway', when the US has a formal freeway system, but lacks a formal expressway system. Most other countries that also lack a formal expressway system do not use the trunk/expressway definition (UK, Canada, etc). In my area, sticking strictly to "divided highway with partial control of access" means very few highways at all will see 'trunk' tagging. Certainly, this reflects what's on the ground here if we use this definition - but why use a definition that either has to be used ambiguously or seldom at all? I support orthogonalizing expressways & trunk by using 'expressway=yes/no' for access control (maybe access_control=full/partial/no?), 'highway=trunk' to mean non-freeway road with national-level importance, and using 'oneway' to denote whether a highway is divided or not. Then let rendering decide how to draw the road from there. Want to see formal expressways drawn separately? 'Expressway=yes' & 'oneway=yes'. Want a more general view of the most important US highways? 'Highway=trunk'. As it stands, I will continue to use 'trunk' on any section of highway that is somewhere between a freeway and a conventional 2-lane highway per US consensus. Hopefully one of these days consensus will shift. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
I chime in as a North American (Upper Midwest, originally) that highway=trunk is a not-especially-clear semantic in OSM (here, let's say the lower 48). I understand the history of the tag but agree it is used to mean many things, widely, including in the states/regions/areas Joseph mentions; it's a rich topic. So far, discussion about expressway and motorway have been tangentially helpful (to me, maybe others). We had to go "trunk is fuzzy in the USA" there, didn't we? Yeah, we did, I guess. Tag. Tag well. I consider whether to enter Silicon Valley's expressways (G routes) as an example of the Urban/Suburban Expressways in our expressway wiki. Interesting bit o' history about those (they are the second of three tax phases of becoming-freeway). They seem sort of frozen where they are now but they do get special, real-time data fed, kinda-cool lane signage which keeps traffic flowing. Bikes are welcome on some, yes. Actually, bike networks in Silicon Valley are an interesting construction project, both in the real world and OSM. Tagging is tagging and discussion about tagging is discussion. Thanks for good discussion. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
I checked and motorroad=yes in used in Spain for "Autovias" which are like expressways, but they usually allow bicycles, just like many expressways in the USA. So the idea that motorroads prohibit bicycles and pedestrians is more specific to France, Germany and some other countries, while in other places the tag is more like the USA-specific expressway=* - a divided highway with somewhat limited access, higher speeds, prioritizing motor vehicle travel but not necessarily prohibiting bikes. > I think it'd honestly be easier to get everyone to agree that it's time for > lanes=* to include all lanes, not just lanes of a minimum width accessible to > a pretty narrow selection of vehicles... I don't quite understand this comment. Is it about bike lanes? Are we sure that highway=trunk actually has a clear definition in North America? It seems to be used differently in several places I've checked; eg. California vs East Coast vs North Dakota. On 8/29/19, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:05 PM Joseph Eisenberg > > wrote: > >> I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd >> like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. >> >> I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and >> expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=, >> maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using >> highway=trunk for this. >> > > Ideally I'd prefer we started using tags that actually reflect what people > call things in this country and have a lookup table on the wiki someplace > for national equivalence, ie, highway=expressway, highway=freeway, etc, > since the US tends to have more levels and nuance than the relatively easy > "A/B/C/M/U" grading the British have officially that carries over there. > We don't really have motorroad as a well defined thing here, either, even > about 3/5ths of the states allow pedestrians and bicycles on most > freeways. Using trunks for expressways does give a pretty well defined > expectation of what you're going to be experiencing as it's used now. > > Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was >> originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network. >> While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in >> each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to >> have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in >> sparsely-populated parts of the country. >> > > Well, literally the official designation of the highway, before the project > jumped outside the UK. > > >> For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. >> Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now >> only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to >> upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic >> leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. >> > > I'm not sure that's really worth revisiting so much; seems for the US as we > have it now. NE2 nationally torque-tagged everything in network=US:US as > trunk and that seems to have broken the already established trunk. > > >> The segments that are divided and wider can be tagged expressway=yes, >> lanes=4, maxspeed=, etc, so if people want to render these differently >> they can (routers are probably more interested in the number of >> intersections, traffic signals, lanes, maxspeed, and surface, so the >> expressway=* tag isn't really needed). >> > > I think it'd honestly be easier to get everyone to agree that it's time for > lanes=* to include all lanes, not just lanes of a minimum width accessible > to a pretty narrow selection of vehicles than redefine highway=trunk in > North America at this point. Certainly a lot less subjective. > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:15 PM stevea wrote: > > > Eeeeh, that's gonna be a hard sell for the most part, most Oklahoma > expressways are built like this as are parts of Interstate freeways, with > the only real difference between the two being at-grade intersections and > limited driveways (as opposed to getting to install driveways virtually > anywhere you want on it). Indian Nation Turnpike is a great example of > this. Save for being fully controlled access from the get-go meriting a > motorway tag, it's of substantially the same design and in about the same > condition as the expressway portions of 66. > https://openstreetcam.org/details/1119877/3443/track-info > > So, trunk is wrong? Your link appears to display an old road, re-paved > many times, but I wouldn't call it a bad road, maybe intermediate or good. > Well, on the INT it would be, it's tagged as motorway because it's controlled and limited access with dual carriageway. The section of 66 we're talking about is trunk because it's only semi controlled and only loosely limited access. > > When there's more driveways, it either narrows and becomes a boulevard > (like US 75 does for a couple kilometers in Okmulgee, > https://openstreetcam.org/details/1119877/803/track-info; > > If but for the driveway, that looks like trunk, but the driveway makes me > say primary or secondary. > Expressways tend to have more rules on how you can connect a driveway up to one and how frequently they appear, not that driveways are banned nearly entirely. They're not anywhere near as common as you might get with a primary, and driveways are usually but not always grouped together where they meet the highway compared to what you'd normally expect on a primary. > > or US 64 does entering Muskogee, > https://openstreetcam.org/details/1366842/204/track-info) > > Nice example of a similar (to above) transitioning to / from "median > divided road" to "simply double-yellow line divided" (no median). I don't > think this is trunk, again, depending on daily traffic and speeds, I'd say > primary or secondary here, but not trunk. > Obviously I disagree. ODOT might just take up the road and convert it down to a boulevard later (especially if the impending bordering incipient expressway revolt starting to take root in places like Muskogee take deeper root), but that would be pretty typical of an inline transition at the end of an expressway pretty much anywhere in the midwest. If all you need to do beyond severing driveways is add an overpass and ramps to make it a freeway, you're probably looking at a trunk, it's not always controllable how things organically develop around edges of towns. Another good example is about a mile west where US 69 goes into Muskogee. It used to be a solid expressway down to McAlester, but over the course of the 2000s they started adding grade separated ramps, and this decade they spent severing driveways and at-grade crossings from Wainright Road to the south end of OK 113 making that 75 km stretch a motorway. I get the frustration. There's a lot of Oklahoma that looks weird because of the expressways seemingly scattergunned across the state. But, that's a reflection of reality. And that reality is a bit of the root cause of the pushback the public's giving ODOT on new expressways and freeways now, because there's so much unnecessary capacity that was built up without any coherent plan or clear justification for building it, often while overlooking more pressing needs like maintaining what already exists, bordering on absurdity. > > or frontages are added to wrangle driveway traffic with connections to > and from the expressway and the frontage being closer in frequency to what > you would get for driveways in somewhat rural expressways (for example, the > George Nigh Expressway in McAlester, > https://openstreetcam.org/details/48220/5369/track-info), > > Here, driveways make me want to hold my nose at trunk (though it otherwise > looks like one), so again, primary if speeds and ADT #s (daily average > traffic counts) warrant it, otherwise, secondary. (Though, large > 18-wheelers / semis hauling discourages me from saying secondary). > That's where things get a little sticky, sure. ODOT built most of the expressways and all of the turnpikes with aspirations that Oklahoma would be as populated as California and often rammed through expressways on that assumption. There's just a lot of examples where ODOT tried to kill a fly with a cruise missile and missed. AADT on the examples I've given in Muskogee and McAlester so far are all at least 1. US 69 examples are 15000 on the motorway portions and in McAlester where it's an expressway with frontage roads, it's about 20100. In Muskogee, where US 69 passes through as a single carriageway primary street, it's about 22000, getting significantly more traffic than the turnpike a couple kilometers east. Plans to build a freeway bypass through the neighborhoods on the west
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:05 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd > like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. > > I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and > expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=, > maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using > highway=trunk for this. > Ideally I'd prefer we started using tags that actually reflect what people call things in this country and have a lookup table on the wiki someplace for national equivalence, ie, highway=expressway, highway=freeway, etc, since the US tends to have more levels and nuance than the relatively easy "A/B/C/M/U" grading the British have officially that carries over there. We don't really have motorroad as a well defined thing here, either, even about 3/5ths of the states allow pedestrians and bicycles on most freeways. Using trunks for expressways does give a pretty well defined expectation of what you're going to be experiencing as it's used now. Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was > originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network. > While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in > each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to > have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in > sparsely-populated parts of the country. > Well, literally the official designation of the highway, before the project jumped outside the UK. > For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic > leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. > I'm not sure that's really worth revisiting so much; seems for the US as we have it now. NE2 nationally torque-tagged everything in network=US:US as trunk and that seems to have broken the already established trunk. > The segments that are divided and wider can be tagged expressway=yes, > lanes=4, maxspeed=, etc, so if people want to render these differently > they can (routers are probably more interested in the number of > intersections, traffic signals, lanes, maxspeed, and surface, so the > expressway=* tag isn't really needed). > I think it'd honestly be easier to get everyone to agree that it's time for lanes=* to include all lanes, not just lanes of a minimum width accessible to a pretty narrow selection of vehicles than redefine highway=trunk in North America at this point. Certainly a lot less subjective. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
I totally agree with this! As I've stated before, I've long thought that most US highways should be tagged as trunk roads. Heck, someone recently tagged US 101 in Washington as trunk but I have no interest in changing it back because I agree with the way it's tagged. That would be more in line with the definition of a trunk road as started on the wiki. And I totally support the use of the expressway tag. -Evin On Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 7:06 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd > like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. > > I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and > expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=, > maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using > highway=trunk for this. > > Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was > originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network. > While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in > each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to > have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in > sparsely-populated parts of the country. > > For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. > Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now > only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to > upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic > leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. > > The segments that are divided and wider can be tagged expressway=yes, > lanes=4, maxspeed=, etc, so if people want to render these differently > they can (routers are probably more interested in the number of > intersections, traffic signals, lanes, maxspeed, and surface, so the > expressway=* tag isn't really needed). > > On 8/29/19, Paul Johnson wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:04 AM stevea > wrote: > > > >> Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us: > >> > >> The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, > >> poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit > >> ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what > >> granularity. (Volker COULD do detailed tagging, but I hear loud and > >> clear > >> he prefers high-granularity tagging, as do I, though we all recognize > how > >> tedious this can be). And "old 66" is a quintessential example, many > >> segments are a century old or older: it is known as "the Mother road" > by > >> many. BTW, many public agencies under the umbrella of Southern > >> California > >> Association of Governments are working on developing USBR 66 in > >> California > >> for cyclists (the route number choice is no coincidence as some > >> alignments > >> follow the old Mother road). This was actually in OSM as an early > >> proposed > >> route, but was removed to conform to USBRS proposed route conventions. > >> If/as USBR 66 turns into a Caltrans (DOT) route proposal to AASHTO, OSM > >> will re-enter these data. It makes sense to pay close attention to the > >> underlying infrastructure tagging (tertiary, surface, smoothness...) as > >> we > >> do so since these are important to cyclists. > >> > > > > So, the segment in question given in the example to me (I don't think the > > response was intended only for me, so I'm not quoting the whole thing) is > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14678570/. OpenStreetCam has footage > > from November 2018 on it at > > https://openstreetcam.org/details/1305935/3747/track-info, showing it's > a > > pretty typical Oklahoma expressway, 55 MPH speed limit for most of it, > > slowing towards its eastern end, and is currently a part of OK 66. > > > > I think a better argument for downgrading from trunk exists in Southern > > California if it hasn't been downgraded already. There's some decent > > chunks east of Indio in San Bernardino County off the top of my head that > > were clearly constructed as trunks, have since left Caltrans inventory > and > > are now county roads, and SB County has just let one side of the road rot > > off, running both directions undivided on the other (usually the former > > westbound-only carriageway, from memory, as last I drove it I was going > > eastbound, the center divider was on my right, and it looked like the > other > > side hadn't been usable for at least a decade with weeds and huge cracks > > growing out of the abandoned carriageway). > > > > A case can be made for highway=trunk (for connectivity reasons) yet I do > >> resonate with "secondary at best" for such old, poor roads. Tagging > >> highway=trunk is about as high a classification as the very best > portions > >> of this road will ever get, and only on its highest-speed segments which > >> are divided. This implies highway=tertiary (MAYBE secondary) where the > >> road is NOT dual carriageway, as highway=trunk in the USA means "with a > >> barrier or median separating each direction
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Aug 28, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote: > So, the segment in question given in the example to me (I don't think the > response was intended only for me, so I'm not quoting the whole thing) is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14678570/. OpenStreetCam has footage from > November 2018 on it at > https://openstreetcam.org/details/1305935/3747/track-info, showing it's a > pretty typical Oklahoma expressway, 55 MPH speed limit for most of it, > slowing towards its eastern end, and is currently a part of OK 66. Looks like trunk, tagged as trunk. Again, I'm not saying every road should be downgraded from trunk, merely those which are not trunk, and there certainly are some, in Oklahoma, California, as well as many other states along the alignment(s). > I think a better argument for downgrading from trunk exists in Southern > California if it hasn't been downgraded already. There's some decent chunks > east of Indio in San Bernardino County off the top of my head that were > clearly constructed as trunks, have since left Caltrans inventory and are now > county roads, and SB County has just let one side of the road rot off, > running both directions undivided on the other (usually the former > westbound-only carriageway, from memory, as last I drove it I was going > eastbound, the center divider was on my right, and it looked like the other > side hadn't been usable for at least a decade with weeds and huge cracks > growing out of the abandoned carriageway). Yes, these are definitely downgradable from trunk. While JOSM complains about the tag, highway=road could be used temporarily, though the "open" (to vehicular traffic) might end up being tagged highway=tertiary, the weedy, abandoned road likely gets abandoned:highway=unclassified. I'm not sure if/how the latter renders, so it might "look weird," but that wouldn't be the first time we tag accurately and think "that looks weird." If it is accurate tagging, so be it (how it renders). > A case can be made for highway=trunk (for connectivity reasons) yet I do > resonate with "secondary at best" for such old, poor roads. Tagging > highway=trunk is about as high a classification as the very best portions of > this road will ever get, and only on its highest-speed segments which are > divided. This implies highway=tertiary (MAYBE secondary) where the road is > NOT dual carriageway, as highway=trunk in the USA means "with a barrier or > median separating each direction of traffic" (truly dual carriageway). Yes, > it is appropriate to tag highway=secondary on some segments, I believe these > to be in the minority compared to tertiary (which likely makes up the > majority of what remains of this route in many states). > > I could see secondary or tertiary for the non-expressway portions (though > most of it is state highway, so that would be secondary at lowest for the > parts that are currently part of state highways). But it does have among the > longest portions of still-extant expressway portions, mostly still in the > state highway inventory here in Oklahoma. California has state highways which are highway=tertiary (one example is Skyline Drive / Hwy 35 in the Santa Cruz Mountains), though I've driven this many times and there is one segment which is essentially residential: the road is essentially single-lane (maybe ten feet / 3 m wide), is quite sinuous, has a "basic speed law" (drive only as fast as is safe) of approximately 15 MPH (narrow, windy) and has family (live-on) farms on either side of it; https://www.osm.org/way/37438761. I entertain good arguments for either highway=residential or highway=unclassified on this segment, as highway=tertiary seems seriously over-generous. Yet, it is a state highway, linking, say, the mountain village of La Honda with Bear Creek Road access to (state) Highway 17, the major artery over the central portion of the Santa Cruz Mountains. > I also say including a surface=* tag is important, so is a smoothness=* tag > (though that has its controversies) where this is known or meets / falls > below value intermediate (or so). > > I think it's important to disconnect the idea of surface=* and smoothness=* > from highway=* in most cases. If surface and smoothness factored into it, > that really opens up I 5 in Portland until relatively recently (like, before > about 2013) to question it's motorway status, as it's 50 and 55 MPH speed > limits being way too fast without damaging tires on the potholes or > hydroplaning the ruts. I can see something being tagged highway=motorway and smoothness=intermediate (or even worse), if they describe that Oregon segment of I-5 before it was re-paved. I think that if a smoothness=intermediate or smoothness=bad tag exists, it is there for good reason. > Let's agree that simply tagging highway=trunk is often incorrect when dual > carriageways of highway=tertiary with accurate surface=* (and sure, >
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd like to address the use of highway=trunk in general. I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=, maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using highway=trunk for this. Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network. While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in sparsely-populated parts of the country. For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g. Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City. The segments that are divided and wider can be tagged expressway=yes, lanes=4, maxspeed=, etc, so if people want to render these differently they can (routers are probably more interested in the number of intersections, traffic signals, lanes, maxspeed, and surface, so the expressway=* tag isn't really needed). On 8/29/19, Paul Johnson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:04 AM stevea wrote: > >> Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us: >> >> The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, >> poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit >> ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what >> granularity. (Volker COULD do detailed tagging, but I hear loud and >> clear >> he prefers high-granularity tagging, as do I, though we all recognize how >> tedious this can be). And "old 66" is a quintessential example, many >> segments are a century old or older: it is known as "the Mother road" by >> many. BTW, many public agencies under the umbrella of Southern >> California >> Association of Governments are working on developing USBR 66 in >> California >> for cyclists (the route number choice is no coincidence as some >> alignments >> follow the old Mother road). This was actually in OSM as an early >> proposed >> route, but was removed to conform to USBRS proposed route conventions. >> If/as USBR 66 turns into a Caltrans (DOT) route proposal to AASHTO, OSM >> will re-enter these data. It makes sense to pay close attention to the >> underlying infrastructure tagging (tertiary, surface, smoothness...) as >> we >> do so since these are important to cyclists. >> > > So, the segment in question given in the example to me (I don't think the > response was intended only for me, so I'm not quoting the whole thing) is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14678570/. OpenStreetCam has footage > from November 2018 on it at > https://openstreetcam.org/details/1305935/3747/track-info, showing it's a > pretty typical Oklahoma expressway, 55 MPH speed limit for most of it, > slowing towards its eastern end, and is currently a part of OK 66. > > I think a better argument for downgrading from trunk exists in Southern > California if it hasn't been downgraded already. There's some decent > chunks east of Indio in San Bernardino County off the top of my head that > were clearly constructed as trunks, have since left Caltrans inventory and > are now county roads, and SB County has just let one side of the road rot > off, running both directions undivided on the other (usually the former > westbound-only carriageway, from memory, as last I drove it I was going > eastbound, the center divider was on my right, and it looked like the other > side hadn't been usable for at least a decade with weeds and huge cracks > growing out of the abandoned carriageway). > > A case can be made for highway=trunk (for connectivity reasons) yet I do >> resonate with "secondary at best" for such old, poor roads. Tagging >> highway=trunk is about as high a classification as the very best portions >> of this road will ever get, and only on its highest-speed segments which >> are divided. This implies highway=tertiary (MAYBE secondary) where the >> road is NOT dual carriageway, as highway=trunk in the USA means "with a >> barrier or median separating each direction of traffic" (truly dual >> carriageway). Yes, it is appropriate to tag highway=secondary on some >> segments, I believe these to be in the minority compared to tertiary >> (which >> likely makes up the majority of what remains of this route in many >> states). >> > > I could see secondary or tertiary for the non-expressway portions (though > most of it is state highway, so that would be secondary at lowest for the > parts that are currently part of state highways). But it does have among > the longest portions of still-extant expressway portions, mostly still in > the state highway inventory here in Oklahoma. > > >> I also say including
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:10 AM Kevin Kenny wrote: > 'Historic US 66' is a bannered and numbered route because of its > history, not because of its current importance to the road system. The > constituent ways should be tagged as whatever they are currently in > the road network. In many places, 'Historic US 66' no longer follows > the historic route of the road because the road is no longer passable > or no longer has good connections to the highway network. For example, > from Flagstaff, Arizona to the New Mexico state line (except for brief > detours through Winslow and Holbrook) the bannered 'Historic Route 66' > is highway=motorway because the construction of I-40 obliterated or > disconnected the old route. (I don't know whether I-40 actually bears > the signage anywhere.) > It does, sporadically, as of the last time I was that far west on 66. And there's also places like in Tulsa where there's multiple old alignments, all of which are signed as Historic 66. In order of mundane to strange, would be its final alignment on what's now I 44, a couple major section line boulevards across north Tulsa, an otherwise fairly anonymous two lane road running between flood control ponds in a residential neighborhood, what's now a quiet light industrial and residential street about a block from where America's first yield sign once stood, and a staircase. There are places where the old road exists on the ground and bears the > name, but are not bannered because a road fails to connect or is no > longer reliably passable to low-clearance automobiles. The route can > be followed for some distance east and west of Exit 303, for instance. > It's at most an 'unclassified' road and connects mostly to tracks. At > the east end of that run, there's no crossing of I-40, and the road > simply turns right onto another track. On the other side of the > freeway, the pavement resumes, but in Petrified Forest it's > unmaintained and has deteriorated to where it is neither safe nor > lawful to drive. East of there, it's a track at best, and again ends > at a freeway crossing without an interchange. On the far side, it's a > minor rural road (County Road 7385) > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16792461, then crosses the freeway > at McCarrell and becomes the freeway frontage road in Chambers. If > memory serves, some of the tracks that remain in use are no longer > public rights-of-way, and neither the ranchers nor the Navajo Nation > welcome visitors on them. > Pueblo Laguna still has Indian Road L66, but they've intentionally removed the pavement, and the signage along the road telling you not to take pictures and that they do not want visitors makes it pretty clear that you're merely tolerated so long as you're minding your own business, taking only memories and leaving only tire tracks in the dust (though I think this might be in New Mexico...I was conserving the food and water I had on hand in case I got stuck and was taking the trip solo in a borderline overloaded car after having emptied a storage unit, so I wasn't exactly traveling under ideal conditions, L66 was easily the worst-maintained portion I was willing to risk). > In western Arizona, from Kingman to Seligman, the historic way is in > service, is bannered 'AZ 66' and is at least 'secondary'. About the only other classification I could see for that is primary, and that's only because of it's relative historical value as a through route that people come from around the world to drive, and (deep memory dive on this) it's set up with permanent turnable/foldable signs to work as I 40 Detour in emergencies on the freeway. ADOT bought the rights to Burma Shave's branding just to maintain their own Burma Shave signs along that section (amusingly, these are retroreflective metal signs made to roughly the same physical specs as the standard MUTCD signs along the road). > East of > Seligman, it exists as Crookson Road and 'Old US 66, but diminishes to > a track and disappears at a corner where it crosses neither I-40 nor > the Phoenix spur of the Santa Fe. Between there are Flagstaff, there > are fragmentary tracks, and some, such as > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16792461 are entirely isolated from > the road network. West of Kingman, it's County Road 10, and at least > it used to be challenging to drive because it was a narrow and badly > deteriorated road in mountainous terrain. The only community on the > route is Oatman, which has enjoyed something of a resurgence as a > tourist destination, "come see the ghost town where wild burros roam > the streets." I'd say it's probably 'tertiary' because in that desert, > it doesn't take much to make a road important. > It's still pretty rough and it's still a twisty drive, with the speed limit being 15 MPH in places, IIRC. Speed limit enforced by burro. Wanted to see the fire station for their restored, roofless firetrucks, but the closest I could legally get to it was a block away because apparently
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:04 AM stevea wrote: > Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us: > > The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, > poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit > ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what > granularity. (Volker COULD do detailed tagging, but I hear loud and clear > he prefers high-granularity tagging, as do I, though we all recognize how > tedious this can be). And "old 66" is a quintessential example, many > segments are a century old or older: it is known as "the Mother road" by > many. BTW, many public agencies under the umbrella of Southern California > Association of Governments are working on developing USBR 66 in California > for cyclists (the route number choice is no coincidence as some alignments > follow the old Mother road). This was actually in OSM as an early proposed > route, but was removed to conform to USBRS proposed route conventions. > If/as USBR 66 turns into a Caltrans (DOT) route proposal to AASHTO, OSM > will re-enter these data. It makes sense to pay close attention to the > underlying infrastructure tagging (tertiary, surface, smoothness...) as we > do so since these are important to cyclists. > So, the segment in question given in the example to me (I don't think the response was intended only for me, so I'm not quoting the whole thing) is https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14678570/. OpenStreetCam has footage from November 2018 on it at https://openstreetcam.org/details/1305935/3747/track-info, showing it's a pretty typical Oklahoma expressway, 55 MPH speed limit for most of it, slowing towards its eastern end, and is currently a part of OK 66. I think a better argument for downgrading from trunk exists in Southern California if it hasn't been downgraded already. There's some decent chunks east of Indio in San Bernardino County off the top of my head that were clearly constructed as trunks, have since left Caltrans inventory and are now county roads, and SB County has just let one side of the road rot off, running both directions undivided on the other (usually the former westbound-only carriageway, from memory, as last I drove it I was going eastbound, the center divider was on my right, and it looked like the other side hadn't been usable for at least a decade with weeds and huge cracks growing out of the abandoned carriageway). A case can be made for highway=trunk (for connectivity reasons) yet I do > resonate with "secondary at best" for such old, poor roads. Tagging > highway=trunk is about as high a classification as the very best portions > of this road will ever get, and only on its highest-speed segments which > are divided. This implies highway=tertiary (MAYBE secondary) where the > road is NOT dual carriageway, as highway=trunk in the USA means "with a > barrier or median separating each direction of traffic" (truly dual > carriageway). Yes, it is appropriate to tag highway=secondary on some > segments, I believe these to be in the minority compared to tertiary (which > likely makes up the majority of what remains of this route in many states). > I could see secondary or tertiary for the non-expressway portions (though most of it is state highway, so that would be secondary at lowest for the parts that are currently part of state highways). But it does have among the longest portions of still-extant expressway portions, mostly still in the state highway inventory here in Oklahoma. > I also say including a surface=* tag is important, so is a smoothness=* > tag (though that has its controversies) where this is known or meets / > falls below value intermediate (or so). > I think it's important to disconnect the idea of surface=* and smoothness=* from highway=* in most cases. If surface and smoothness factored into it, that really opens up I 5 in Portland until relatively recently (like, before about 2013) to question it's motorway status, as it's 50 and 55 MPH speed limits being way too fast without damaging tires on the potholes or hydroplaning the ruts. Let's agree that simply tagging highway=trunk is often incorrect when dual > carriageways of highway=tertiary with accurate surface=* (and sure, > smoothness=*) tags would be much more accurate and preferred. > Eeeeh, that's gonna be a hard sell for the most part, most Oklahoma expressways are built like this as are parts of Interstate freeways, with the only real difference between the two being at-grade intersections and limited driveways (as opposed to getting to install driveways virtually anywhere you want on it). Indian Nation Turnpike is a great example of this. Save for being fully controlled access from the get-go meriting a motorway tag, it's of substantially the same design and in about the same condition as the expressway portions of 66. https://openstreetcam.org/details/1119877/3443/track-info When there's more driveways, it either narrows and becomes a boulevard (like US 75 does for
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:09 AM stevea wrote: > The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, > poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit > ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what granularity. > (Volker COULD do detailed tagging, but I hear loud and clear he prefers > high-granularity tagging, as do I, though we all recognize how tedious this > can be). And "old 66" is a quintessential example, many segments are a > century old or older: it is known as "the Mother road" by many. BTW, many > public agencies under the umbrella of Southern California Association of > Governments are working on developing USBR 66 in California for cyclists (the > route number choice is no coincidence as some alignments follow the old > Mother road). This was actually in OSM as an early proposed route, but was > removed to conform to USBRS proposed route conventions. If/as USBR 66 turns > into a Caltrans (DOT) route proposal to AASHTO, OSM will re-enter these data. > It makes sense to pay close attention to the underlying infrastructure > tagging (tertiary, surface, smoothness...) as we do so since these are > important to cyclists. It really depends on what we're talking about here. Are we talking about the places that are bannered with the 'Historic US 66' sign (with the appearance of a US Highway banner from the 1930s), roads named 'Old US 66', or the actual ways comprising the historic route of the road. 'Historic US 66' is a bannered and numbered route because of its history, not because of its current importance to the road system. The constituent ways should be tagged as whatever they are currently in the road network. In many places, 'Historic US 66' no longer follows the historic route of the road because the road is no longer passable or no longer has good connections to the highway network. For example, from Flagstaff, Arizona to the New Mexico state line (except for brief detours through Winslow and Holbrook) the bannered 'Historic Route 66' is highway=motorway because the construction of I-40 obliterated or disconnected the old route. (I don't know whether I-40 actually bears the signage anywhere.) There are places where the old road exists on the ground and bears the name, but are not bannered because a road fails to connect or is no longer reliably passable to low-clearance automobiles. The route can be followed for some distance east and west of Exit 303, for instance. It's at most an 'unclassified' road and connects mostly to tracks. At the east end of that run, there's no crossing of I-40, and the road simply turns right onto another track. On the other side of the freeway, the pavement resumes, but in Petrified Forest it's unmaintained and has deteriorated to where it is neither safe nor lawful to drive. East of there, it's a track at best, and again ends at a freeway crossing without an interchange. On the far side, it's a minor rural road (County Road 7385) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16792461, then crosses the freeway at McCarrell and becomes the freeway frontage road in Chambers. If memory serves, some of the tracks that remain in use are no longer public rights-of-way, and neither the ranchers nor the Navajo Nation welcome visitors on them. In western Arizona, from Kingman to Seligman, the historic way is in service, is bannered 'AZ 66' and is at least 'secondary'. East of Seligman, it exists as Crookson Road and 'Old US 66, but diminishes to a track and disappears at a corner where it crosses neither I-40 nor the Phoenix spur of the Santa Fe. Between there are Flagstaff, there are fragmentary tracks, and some, such as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16792461 are entirely isolated from the road network. West of Kingman, it's County Road 10, and at least it used to be challenging to drive because it was a narrow and badly deteriorated road in mountainous terrain. The only community on the route is Oatman, which has enjoyed something of a resurgence as a tourist destination, "come see the ghost town where wild burros roam the streets." I'd say it's probably 'tertiary' because in that desert, it doesn't take much to make a road important. For the whole route, I'd say, 'tag the constituent ways as what they are, and maintain the 'Historic US 66' relation only where the historic route is marked, or at least named.' The 'Old US 66' concept is best left for OHM. > Are there any fresh, eager readers of this list who wish to delve into a > fairly tedious sub-project in OSM: tagging "their" portion of 66 (and its > many remnants, bypasses, used-to-be-segments...) that they know? The right > classifications (as they render) and surface=* and smoothness=* tagging > (though, they do not render) would be very welcome ongoing improvements to > our fine project. It could be a state-at-a-time effort to drum up OSM > community, it could become a "WikiProject" (though that concept seems to have >
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us: The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what granularity. (Volker COULD do detailed tagging, but I hear loud and clear he prefers high-granularity tagging, as do I, though we all recognize how tedious this can be). And "old 66" is a quintessential example, many segments are a century old or older: it is known as "the Mother road" by many. BTW, many public agencies under the umbrella of Southern California Association of Governments are working on developing USBR 66 in California for cyclists (the route number choice is no coincidence as some alignments follow the old Mother road). This was actually in OSM as an early proposed route, but was removed to conform to USBRS proposed route conventions. If/as USBR 66 turns into a Caltrans (DOT) route proposal to AASHTO, OSM will re-enter these data. It makes sense to pay close attention to the underlying infrastructure tagging (tertiary, surface, smoothness...) as we do so since these are important to cyclists. A case can be made for highway=trunk (for connectivity reasons) yet I do resonate with "secondary at best" for such old, poor roads. Tagging highway=trunk is about as high a classification as the very best portions of this road will ever get, and only on its highest-speed segments which are divided. This implies highway=tertiary (MAYBE secondary) where the road is NOT dual carriageway, as highway=trunk in the USA means "with a barrier or median separating each direction of traffic" (truly dual carriageway). Yes, it is appropriate to tag highway=secondary on some segments, I believe these to be in the minority compared to tertiary (which likely makes up the majority of what remains of this route in many states). I also say including a surface=* tag is important, so is a smoothness=* tag (though that has its controversies) where this is known or meets / falls below value intermediate (or so). Let's agree that simply tagging highway=trunk is often incorrect when dual carriageways of highway=tertiary with accurate surface=* (and sure, smoothness=*) tags would be much more accurate and preferred. Are there any fresh, eager readers of this list who wish to delve into a fairly tedious sub-project in OSM: tagging "their" portion of 66 (and its many remnants, bypasses, used-to-be-segments...) that they know? The right classifications (as they render) and surface=* and smoothness=* tagging (though, they do not render) would be very welcome ongoing improvements to our fine project. It could be a state-at-a-time effort to drum up OSM community, it could become a "WikiProject" (though that concept seems to have fuzzied as of late), it could be a topic at Meetups or Mapping Parties in the appropriate geographical venues...it seems like a good fit to build a kernel of effort to "get this right." May we see better 66 tagging going forward! SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:27 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > going over my Mapillary photos of Route 66 I just noticed that long > stretches of the Historic 66 are mapped in OK as highway=trunk as soon as > they have separate carriageways for the two directions. Many of these > stretches are at best secondary roads, often with poor road surface and > with plenty of intersections and driveways connected to them. > I'm familiar with and traveled the entire length of 66 in Oklahoma a few times. Got an example? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK
Hi, going over my Mapillary photos of Route 66 I just noticed that long stretches of the Historic 66 are mapped in OK as highway=trunk as soon as they have separate carriageways for the two directions. Many of these stretches are at best secondary roads, often with poor road surface and with plenty of intersections and driveways connected to them. Someone local should go over this carefully, adding also the applicable speed limits, maybe. As I have ridden the whole lot on bicycle, I could in principle do that, but I would prefer not. Best regards Volker ( Italy ) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
