It’s not clear if we’re getting into a consensus, so I'll be mentioning two major reasons why the road classification scheme needs major reform:
* Manila-centrism. Existing scheme documented in the wiki works fine in Metro Manila and surrounding areas, but not most of the country. Definition of primary is particularly of note; it's fine for major links between Metro Manila's cities, but not for most roads in the rest of the country. Having every road to even town tagged as primary is overkill and there are also connectivity issues arising from this (that’s where importance, tied to the sizes of major destinations, comes into play) * Clearer definition of trunk. Trunk is long used for all major roads links between the largest cities, but a lack of a clear definition and reasonable cut-off points creates room for misuse. Being a national primary road (or 1- to 2-digit route) is just one factor for trunk, noting official designations don't match well with OSM’s; being a link between major population centers (i.e. large cities, NEDA-designated metropolitan areas) and with minimal shortcuts or alignment jogs (save perhaps turns to connect with more recently built bypasses) is a more important factor. On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 1:42 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemig...@gmail.com> wrote: > A route would be marked trunk if it serves two large cities (see list on > proposal page) or metro areas. Some trunk routings with ferry segments > under the proposal follow Nautical Highway routes. I have marked Route 505 > (Arnaldo Boulevard and Baybay in Roxas City) as trunk in the present and > future schemes, but if you're suggesting trunk routings with a ferry > segment should have multiple scheduled trips every day or the ferry leaving > full, which is not the case here due to long trip length (Batangas-Roxas > direct being ~17 hours long), then I can drop that in favor of the Mindoro > and Caticlan routing. Would also like to note this with the Central > Nautical Highway routing (Legazpi-Pilar-Aroroy-Masbate > City-Cataingan-Bogo-Cebu City-Tubigon-Jagna-Camiguin-Balingoan). While the > Cebu-Legazpi legs of this route, currently tagged trunk, provides a > shortcut to the usual routing between the two cities via Eastern Visayas, > the Cataingan-Bogo leg has infrequent ferry service, and the Masbate > segments downgraded to primary (the Cebu-Bogo legs would remain trunk as it > connects with the Bogo-Palompon ferry that forms the Cebu-Ormoc trunk > routing); same goes with the Cebu-Bohol-Camiguin-Balingoan legs, which have > been long tagged primary. > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:45 AM Timeo Gut <timeo....@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> I also think that there should be no classification gaps for major >> routes. >> >> But it might be good to define some criteria as for what qualifies as >> major. I'd like to suggest to only apply this to ferries that have either >> continuous service (ferry leaves whenever full) or at least multiple >> scheduled trips every day. >> >> Best Regards, >> Timmy >> >
_______________________________________________ talk-ph mailing list talk-ph@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
