Hello Jherome,
I just noticed now the changes
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines%2FMapping_conventions&type=revision&diff=2120307&oldid=2119874>
that you made to the classifications table on the main mapping
conventions page. You basically removed all the refinement and updates
that have been made over the last 5 years (by yourself and by others).
Besides the questionable deleting of a lot of important details, I find
it very confusing that you reintroduced definitions that have been
replaced almost two years ago. These old definitions do not reflect
current usage anymore.
While never formally approved, by observing how classifications are
applied by mappers it seems clear that the changes were widely accepted.
I think it would be best to restore the March 1 version of the table and
then proceed from there with bite-sized modifications whenever further
refinement is appropriate.
On 2021-07-04 12:29, Jherome Miguel wrote:
Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the
earlier discussion at the git (see
https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38
<https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38>)
First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk
roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy
(a.k.a. “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely
disagree with that for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to
trunk because it’s being an critical link for movement of goods in
one’s opinion, and led to primary and below its “branches”. I agree
trunk roads are generally vital highway links, but this time, we need
a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route should a key road link
between major population centers (i.e. large cities).
Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of
the existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national
road. Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during
that time, I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses
(national primary, national secondary, national tertiary) as found in
the DPWH department order I referenced, which has defining functional
criteria that is of relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to
deemphasize official designation and use informal tests that would
only worsen the problem with the already dense trunk road network. Add
to the problem is the presence of two proposals, one by me (which is
based on multiple factors) and one by Erwin (which ties OSM
classification with gov’t designation).
Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in
the wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in
the wiki are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any
discussion here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal
guidelines; these suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to
take them as such. Again, the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being
more of an amendment to the pre-existing scheme.
Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing
classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions
or rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying
these. I would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as
containing conflicting, controversial or outdated information.
_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
