Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Ian Dees]

Hi folks,

This conversation is over. If we can't have a conversation about highway
tagging without making personal attacks, then we can't have the
conversation.

Please work harder to stay on topic, have empathy towards your fellow
mapper, and have constructive conversations.

The mailing list is in "emergency moderation" mode for the night.

-Ian

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 6:30 PM Nathan Mills  wrote:

> The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has
> said the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The
> debate is entirely about where the classification change takes place. There
> are several instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In
> AHTD's highway log, they cease to be a motorway wherever legal access
> control or the character of the road changes. Sometimes they do make the
> demarcation at an interchange (usually at the point where the intersecting
> roadway crosses) when the continuation is a short distance.
>
> Given Arkansas law, the state's view is nearly always easily seen from
> speed limit signs thanks to very specific per se speed limits based on
> highway classification. Sadly (for this particular discussion), Oklahoma
> doesn't, though speed limit changes do often accompany clear changes in
> roadway classification.
>
> The overall point being that there are in fact times when classification
> changes at a place other than an interchange.
>
> It's been many years, but I recall there being a speed limit reduction
> northbound coming down the hill to the intersection in question. And again,
> I fail to see how adding an intersection magically changed the 3/4 of a
> mile between Apache and where the median disappears to accommodate the
> Gilcrease intersection. (I incorrectly called the extension past the
> Tisdale Apache in a previous message. I forget the actual name, west of the
> Tisdale, but it has one that is not Gilcrease)
>
> It would be nice if you would stop acting as if there is no room for
> reasonable people to have differing opinions on this since even various
> state governments have differing opinions on the matter. It's mildly rude
> to pretend that yours is the only logical possibility, especially when
> several people have considered your argument and still don't agree.
>
> All that said, at the moment you're the only person currently local to the
> instant case, so given the guideline that encourages us to defer to local
> mappers if their edits aren't broken in some technical way or obviously
> depart from reality, you're more than welcome to tag it the way you did if
> you like.
>
> Still, it was a change from what another local had tagged originally. The
> TIGER import became irrelevant in relation to this discussion when someone
> took the time to add the other carriageway. This isn't a situation where
> the edit in question was being made to a way that was created by the TIGER
> import and not touched by anybody except a few bots since, so the norms
> surrounding that scenario aren't applicable.
>
> -Nathan
>
> On December 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM EST, Paul Johnson 
> wrote:
>>
>> The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
>> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
>> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
>> distinction.
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>>

 On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and
> the six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>

 Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
 a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.


> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make
> you reconsider?
>

 Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
 intersections.  Good luck!

>>>
>>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>>
>>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>>> interchange 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Nathan Mills]

The reason you don't get it is because you are not listening. Nobody has said 
the motorway tagging should continue through the intersection. The debate is 
entirely about where the classification change takes place. There are several 
instances in Arkansas where a motorway ends similarly. In AHTD's highway log, 
they cease to be a motorway wherever legal access control or the character of 
the road changes. Sometimes they do make the demarcation at an interchange 
(usually at the point where the intersecting roadway crosses) when the 
continuation is a short distance.

Given Arkansas law, the state's view is nearly always easily seen from speed 
limit signs thanks to very specific per se speed limits based on highway 
classification. Sadly (for this particular discussion), Oklahoma doesn't, 
though speed limit changes do often accompany clear changes in roadway 
classification.

The overall point being that there are in fact times when classification 
changes at a place other than an interchange.

It's been many years, but I recall there being a speed limit reduction 
northbound coming down the hill to the intersection in question. And again, I 
fail to see how adding an intersection magically changed the 3/4 of a mile 
between Apache and where the median disappears to accommodate the Gilcrease 
intersection. (I incorrectly called the extension past the Tisdale Apache in a 
previous message. I forget the actual name, west of the Tisdale, but it has one 
that is not Gilcrease)

It would be nice if you would stop acting as if there is no room for reasonable 
people to have differing opinions on this since even various state governments 
have differing opinions on the matter. It's mildly rude to pretend that yours 
is the only logical possibility, especially when several people have considered 
your argument and still don't agree.

All that said, at the moment you're the only person currently local to the 
instant case, so given the guideline that encourages us to defer to local 
mappers if their edits aren't broken in some technical way or obviously depart 
from reality, you're more than welcome to tag it the way you did if you like.

Still, it was a change from what another local had tagged originally. The TIGER 
import became irrelevant in relation to this discussion when someone took the 
time to add the other carriageway. This isn't a situation where the edit in 
question was being made to a way that was created by the TIGER import and not 
touched by anybody except a few bots since, so the norms surrounding that 
scenario aren't applicable.

-Nathan

On December 2, 2018 5:03:31 PM EST, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
>junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
>honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
>distinction.
>
>On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco 
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson 
>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel 
>wrote:
>>>
 I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and
>the
 six or so people on that changeset 64919426

>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's
>also a
>>> number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
 discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make
>you
 reconsider?

>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm
>a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following
>along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a
>motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in
>a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing
>roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there
>will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or
>slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone
>to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to
>change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the
>last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both
>sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same --
>where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics
>of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far
>over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

Links please?

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:06 PM Paul Johnson 
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>
>> You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're
>> saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against
>> federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue
>> thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that!
>>
>
> Sure, if the federal guidelines actually said that.  But they exclude all
> surface intersections.
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

Sure thing, go back to about the last year of his edits.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:06 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the
> way you're describing?
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson 
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the
>>> posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples
>>> of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible
>>> change in road geometry, for that matter), but I haven't been able to find
>>> any examples of what Paul is proposing, except for the ones he has edited
>>> himself.
>>>
>>
>> Are there any that don't date back to either the TIGER import or NE2's
>> tag torquing?
>> ___
>> 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] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:04 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're
> saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against
> federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue
> thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that!
>

Sure, if the federal guidelines actually said that.  But they exclude all
surface intersections.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

Can you provide changesets showing where NE2 mass edited motorways in the
way you're describing?

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 3:02 PM Paul Johnson 
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas  wrote:
>
>> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the
>> posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples
>> of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible
>> change in road geometry, for that matter), but I haven't been able to find
>> any examples of what Paul is proposing, except for the ones he has edited
>> himself.
>>
>
> Are there any that don't date back to either the TIGER import or NE2's tag
> torquing?
> ___
> 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] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

You are proving my point once again re misrepresentation of what we're
saying. It would only be accurate for you to say that we're going against
federal guidelines is if we were to say that the motorway should continue
thru the at grade intersection. None of us are saying that!

I'm really getting frustrated with the way you're deliberately
misrepresenting this discussion, so frankly I'm going to bow out since I
don't know what else to say to convince you to change your opinion on this
issue.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 2:55 PM Paul Johnson  On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:
>
>> Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to
>> make us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing
>> things. There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty
>> much all want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first
>> at grade intersection, we think roads with at grade intersections can be
>> classified as motorways.
>>
>
>  There's no reason to get personally derogatory on this.  Where's the
> problem with limiting motorway to what generally meets federal guidelines
> on what constitutes a freeway?
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:58 PM Thomas Silas  wrote:

> As for the situation in question: I agree with the vast majority of the
> posters both in the changeset and in talk-us. There are countless examples
> of the motorway tag extending to the first intersection (or to a visible
> change in road geometry, for that matter), but I haven't been able to find
> any examples of what Paul is proposing, except for the ones he has edited
> himself.
>

Are there any that don't date back to either the TIGER import or NE2's tag
torquing?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:30 PM Evin Fairchild  wrote:

> Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make
> us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things.
> There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all
> want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first at grade
> intersection, we think roads with at grade intersections can be classified
> as motorways.
>

 There's no reason to get personally derogatory on this.  Where's the
problem with limiting motorway to what generally meets federal guidelines
on what constitutes a freeway?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 4:19 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

> I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway
> (or even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far
> enough beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are
> the same as the rest of the motorway, the roadway is functionally a
> motorway.
>

So where is the argument here?  In this case, the speed limits start
dropping (and in the opposite direction, don't get up to full speed) until
the Apache junction.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Evin Fairchild]

Once again, I see you're misrepresenting the discussion and trying to make
us look like a bunch of idiots for not accepting your way of doing things.
There's no way you're so dense as to assume that because we pretty much all
want the motorway designation to extend all the way to the first at grade
intersection, we think roads with at grade intersections can be classified
as motorways.

-Evin (compdude)

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018, 2:05 PM Paul Johnson  The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
> distinction.
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>>
 I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
 six or so people on that changeset 64919426

>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
>>> a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
 discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
 reconsider?

>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> ___
>> 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
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Adam Franco]

I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway (or
even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far enough
beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are the
same as the rest of the motorway, the roadway is functionally a motorway. I
think the issue is that you take the word "include" to mean any segment
possibly touching a surface junction, at any distance from that junction.
It seems that most of the rest of us feel that there is some distance (e.g.
over the horizon, miles away, before a speed reduction, etc) where junction
is far enough off that it is separate from the character of the roadway one
is on.

I've never been to OK and don't know your roadway in question well enough
to weigh in on that specific case, but I would oppose a rule that said that
motorways can never continue to the position where the road character
changes (e.g. signage, speed reduction) leading to a final surface
intersection.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:03 PM Paul Johnson  wrote:

> The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
> distinction.
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>>
 I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
 six or so people on that changeset 64919426

>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
>>> a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
 discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
 reconsider?

>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> ___
>> 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] Trunk versus motorway

[Michael Corey]

Unsubscribe

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 6:18 PM Paul Johnson  Can I get some voice of reason in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be
> quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are
> trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which
> is obviously incorrect.
> ___
> 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] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
distinction.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco  wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>>
>>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
>>> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>>>
>>
>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also a
>> number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>
>>
>>> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
>>> reconsider?
>>>
>>
>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>
>
> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>
> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
> classification.
> ___
> 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] Trunk versus motorway

[Adam Franco]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson  wrote:

>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
>> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>>
>
> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also a
> number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>
>
>> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
>> reconsider?
>>
>
> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
> intersections.  Good luck!
>

Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
classification may continue beyond the last interchange.

If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
"motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
classification.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:
>
>> Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though?
>>
>
> No, I don't think so.  It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the
> side heading towards the intersection.
>
>
> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>

Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also a
number of people in this thread that do agree with me.


> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
> reconsider?
>

Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
intersections.  Good luck!

> What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street
>> interchange just looks weird.
>>
>
> So why should we tag for the renderer?
>
>
> In this case, the renderer is correct, and it’s making your unusual
> tagging preference stand out clearly on the map.
> Would you at least consider tagging the last 500 feet or so as
> motorway_link?
>

It's not a mutual split, though; it's the mainline.  I don't think anybody
would argue link is appropriate in this context.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Bryan Housel]

> On Dec 2, 2018, at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel  > wrote:
> Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?
> 
> No, I don't think so.  It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the 
> side heading towards the intersection.

I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the six or 
so people on that changeset 64919426 discussion all disagree with you.  Is 
there nothing that would make you reconsider? 

The “freeway traffic pattern” is just a guide, right?  I’m sure you wouldn’t 
downgrade motorways around stuff like toll plazas and bridge/tunnel approaches 
just because the traffic slows down there..

>  
> What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange 
> just looks weird.
> 
> So why should we tag for the renderer?

In this case, the renderer is correct, and it’s making your unusual tagging 
preference stand out clearly on the map.
Would you at least consider tagging the last 500 feet or so as motorway_link?

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:37 PM Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Can’t a motorway* begin or end* at an at-grade intersection though?
>

No, I don't think so.  It's at least not a freeway traffic pattern on the
side heading towards the intersection.


> What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street
> interchange just looks weird.
>

So why should we tag for the renderer?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Dec 1, 2018 at 11:01 PM  wrote:

> [forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error]
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Richie Kennedy 
> Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM
> To: Paul Johnson 
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway
>
>
> > On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> >
> > Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk.
>
> Disagree vehemently. I do not believe that a Super-Two should be
> classified differently than its four-lane counterparts
>

They don't even work like regular freeways.  You can't pass, and even if
you can, it's limited by oncoming traffic and onramps.  Freeways are dual
carriageway, fully controlled, grade separated and high speed; anything
that doesn't meet that shouldn't be tagged as motorway.


> > Dual carriageway, at-grade intersections but otherwise freeway like?
> Trunk.
>
> It seems the question in this thread is “Where does a Motorway end and a
> Trunk begin” where there is a stretch containing at-grade intersections
> between two segments that could otherwise qualify as motorway.
>

I generally consider the last junction with another motorway to be a good
place, though the first grade separated junction to be a good compromise.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[richiekennedy56]

[forwarding this to talk-us, sent privately in error]

-Original Message-
From: Richie Kennedy  
Sent: Saturday, December 1, 2018 1:19 PM
To: Paul Johnson 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway


> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk. 

Disagree vehemently. I do not believe that a Super-Two should be classified 
differently than its four-lane counterparts

> Dual carriageway, at-grade intersections but otherwise freeway like?  Trunk. 

It seems the question in this thread is “Where does a Motorway end and a Trunk 
begin” where there is a stretch containing at-grade intersections between two 
segments that could otherwise qualify as motorway.

In my neck of the woods, we have Watkins Drive, where by a consent decree, 
there are intersections and traffic lights. There is a clear demarcation 
between Motorway and Trunk - the speed limit drops to 45 MPH before the 
non-Motorway stretch, then goes back to 55 MPH when controlled access 
continues. Therefore, I would transition from motorway to trunk at the speed 
limit transition 

Then I also have K-7 between Olathe and Bonner Springs, where KDOT has 
incrementally upgraded the road. From Olathe heading north, there are four 
interchanges (119th, College, K-10, Prairie Star Parkway) an driveway 
intersection, an interchange at 83rd, an intersection at 75th, interchanges for 
Shawnee Mission Parkway and Johnson Drive, intersectons at 47th and 43rd, and 
Interchanges at K-32 and Nettleton. I would mark off as Motorway from the PSP 
interchange south and from 43rd north to Nettleton, and in the middle section 
including the Johnson and SMP interchanges. As 83rd is a single interchange 
between two intersections, it would not be given a Motorway designation. 

First, I would look for any field-verifiable transition (e.g. pavement or speed 
limit changesj between an interchange and intersection. If there isn’t one, I’d 
be inclined to either make the transition at the start of a turn lane or at the 
end of an acceleration lane. 


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Albert Pundt]

"Tagging freeway ending/beginnings with this scheme is definitely not
standard practice in the US"

By "this scheme," do you mean motorway up to intersection or motorway only
up to last ramp merge? The former is almost everywhere in the US and I very
rarely see the latter. Even after browsing the west and central US just
now, I only saw a handful of motorways ending at the last ramp merge,
including the examples around Tulsa from the original message. From what
I've seen, this practice is almost nonexistent on the east coast, which has
not only more freeways but also more fragmented freeways to serve as
examples.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 10:09 PM Bradley White 
wrote:

> > Can I get some voice of reason in
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be
> quite
> > a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying
> to
> > propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is
> > obviously incorrect.
>
> I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I'd like to agree with
> the other voices here that this scheme is overly pedantic without any
> real justification for being so. No-one is saying that the motorway
> has an at-grade intersection as you assert; the motorway simply
> begins/ends *at* that intersection. Tagging freeway ending/beginnings
> with this scheme is definitely not standard practice in the US, and I
> don't see how changing this just to split hairs over freeway
> definitions would benefit anyone.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Bradley White]

> Can I get some voice of reason in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be quite
> a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to
> propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is
> obviously incorrect.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but I'd like to agree with
the other voices here that this scheme is overly pedantic without any
real justification for being so. No-one is saying that the motorway
has an at-grade intersection as you assert; the motorway simply
begins/ends *at* that intersection. Tagging freeway ending/beginnings
with this scheme is definitely not standard practice in the US, and I
don't see how changing this just to split hairs over freeway
definitions would benefit anyone.

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Paul Johnson]

I'm largely in agreement and this seems like how it's been done in
practice.  Would also apply to WA 500 (which also should be a trunk east of
I 205, if not at least 112th/Gher; with argument supporting 205 being that
112th/Gher is largely only used by way of it's I 205 North exit and
supporting Gher as the break as it doesn't start slowing down until just
before the WA 500 East merge), and until recently, the entire length west
of the traffic light with Fourth Plain.

There's been a long tendency towards escalating highway priority, which
kind of dilutes all of the definitions and overloads secondary, primary,
trunk and motorway, that I've been trying to resist.  Like US 26 from where
it goes single-carriageway east should be primary, same with US 97 north of
Bend Parkway

 and south of Century Drive

until
the Klamath Falls Pilot

and
then again south of Reams Country Club
,
to use some more examples I'm very familiar with on the ground.  About the
least motorway-like thing I'd call a motorway would be Arroyo Seco Parkway
(most ramps are RORO with stop signs and no merge space, really not having
changed much since it was parodied in 1950's Motor Mania
.

Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk.  Dual carriageway, at-grade
intersections but otherwise freeway like?  Trunk.  Traffic lights?  Trunk.
Fully controlled, fully grade seperated, high speed design?  Motorway.
Random 100km+ stretch of standard interstate-style highway

 (TLDR version
)
that passes a cow pasture whose only frontage is the freeway, accessible
only through a private gate in the freeway fence?  Motorway.

Another set of situations I'm familiar with:  I 5 north of WA 543 (trucks
prohibited, frequently stopped traffic to that point, speed limit gets down
to 10 MPH, passes through several crosswalks, then not long after that and
enters Canada, and doesn't properly continue as freeway again until the 8
Ave interchange on BC 99.  Nearly the mirror situation at the opposite end
of I 5, it and 805 south of the San Ysidro interchange with the Mexican
side currently mapped correctly.  Neither are remotely like, say, taking
Germany's A 6 onto France's A 320 where everything's free flowing, and no
checkpoint and not driving in a park.  A really good edge case would be
between motorway and trunk would be I 5 between OR 99E and WA 14 (traffic
lights for/and a draw bridge, no shoulders, and a blind sharp right turn at
the north end northbound).

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:36 PM Greg Troxel  wrote:

> Bryan Housel  writes:
>
> > Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?
>
> Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road
> that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway.  The basic
> issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local
> property of a road, and is really a statement about the road before and
> after where one is talking about.
>
> Assume an infinitely long road, divided, 2 lanes each way.  After a very
> long time of no intersections, assume an at-grade intersection, and call
> this coordinate 0, expressed in km.
>
> Then, assume an another at-grade intersection at 0.100.  After that, at
> 0.110, and so on, with each being 1.1 times the previous.
>
> By the time you get to 500 km between at-grade intersections, the
> intevening roads are surely motorways.  At 100m, they surely are not.
>
> In my view, to be tagged as motorway, the length of qualifying roadway
> has to be long enough so that it feels like it is very long, as opposed
> to a lucky 2 to 3-mile stretch of trunk that happens not to have any
> intersections.
>
> Overall, I would throw out that if a section that meets motorway specs
> isn't at least 10 miles, it's still really nice trunk, and should not be
> tagged motorway.  Maybe 10 is too much and it should be 5 mi, or 10km,
> or maybe it should be 20 or 25 km.   But 1-2 miles is way too short to
> flip back and forth.
>
>
> I have no  idea if this supports or opposes Paul in this case :-)  But
> I'm guessing it supports...
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Greg Troxel]

Bryan Housel  writes:

> Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road
that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway.  The basic
issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local
property of a road, and is really a statement about the road before and
after where one is talking about.

Assume an infinitely long road, divided, 2 lanes each way.  After a very
long time of no intersections, assume an at-grade intersection, and call
this coordinate 0, expressed in km.

Then, assume an another at-grade intersection at 0.100.  After that, at
0.110, and so on, with each being 1.1 times the previous.

By the time you get to 500 km between at-grade intersections, the
intevening roads are surely motorways.  At 100m, they surely are not.

In my view, to be tagged as motorway, the length of qualifying roadway
has to be long enough so that it feels like it is very long, as opposed
to a lucky 2 to 3-mile stretch of trunk that happens not to have any
intersections.

Overall, I would throw out that if a section that meets motorway specs
isn't at least 10 miles, it's still really nice trunk, and should not be
tagged motorway.  Maybe 10 is too much and it should be 5 mi, or 10km,
or maybe it should be 20 or 25 km.   But 1-2 miles is way too short to
flip back and forth.


I have no  idea if this supports or opposes Paul in this case :-)  But
I'm guessing it supports...

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

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Bryan Housel]

Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange 
just looks weird.
Sorry, but I have to disagree, and would leave it as a motorway up to 
Gilcrease, then trunk beyond that point.

For comparison, our Garden State Parkway in NJ ends at an at grade intersection 
at Exit 0 in Cape May, and I think this is fine.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4904630893#map=17/38.96139/-74.90345 


Thanks, Bryan



> On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> Can I get some voice of reason in 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426 
> ?  There seems to be quite 
> a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to 
> propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is 
> obviously incorrect.
> ___
> 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