1) I'd have far fewer problems with "highway=primary" being replaced by
"highway=road" "road_class=primary" or something like that (making it
easier to say "we don't classify roads here").
2) I'm not going around telling Brazilians which Brazilian roads they're
allowed to tag as primary. I'd welcome if this was reciprocated.
3) Since when is "harmonisation" a code-word for "we don't have motorways
so neither should you"?
On 23 February 2018 at 18:56, Pierre Béland <pierz...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> If we talk of harmonization, we have to look outside of Europe and the
> major industrialized countries. The highway classsification based on
> infrastructures such as motorways and trunk roads is not adapted to the
> majority of the countries or regions.
> In countries or vast regions with no motorway, should we consider primary
> roads the same level as motorways? Or classify as trunk for the renderer?
> Le vendredi 23 février 2018 11:16:45 HNE, djakk djakk <
> djakk.dj...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I know that « trunk » is country-dependent but why not moving it to a
> worldwide definition ? Administrative classification could be moved to
> other tags :)
> Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 16:06, Matej Lieskovský <
> lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> I'd like to caution against using this system globally. In Czechia, roads
> are formally classified into classes, which influence signage, ref numbers
> and so on. Deploying this system here would make the tag confusing/useless
> and would likely face enormous backlash. I have no problems with using this
> system in countries without a clearly defined road classification, but
> please don't touch the countries where there is no doubt about what class
> any given road is.
> Happy mapping!
> On 22 February 2018 at 16:20, djakk djakk <djakk.dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, administrative-free,
> tends to the same osm map between countries.
> Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien <
> fernando.treb...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it
> by reading a wiki talk page .
> Since 13 February 2009, the wiki  criticises highway classification
> as problematic/unverifiable. This has also been subject to a lot of
> controversy (and edit wars) in my local community (Brazil), especially
> regarding the effect of (lack of) pavement.
> In trying to achieve greater consensus some years ago, I decided to
> seek opinions elsewhere and finally I arrived at this scheme  which
> I think is very useful, if not perfect yet. It can be easily
> summarised like this:
> - trunk: best routes between large/important cities
> - primary: best routes between cities and above
> - secondary: best routes between towns/suburbs and above
> - tertiary: best routes between villages/neighbourhoods and above
> - unclassified: best routes between other place=* and above
> For example, the best route between two villages would be at least
> tertiary. So would be the best route between a village and a town or a
> city. Parts of this route might have a higher class in case they are
> part of a route between more important places.
> It surely raises the problem of determining optimal routes. Maybe a
> sensible criterion would be average travel time without traffic
> congestion. A number of vehicles may be selected for this average -
> could be motorcycle+car+bus+truck, or simply car+truck.
> Early results in my area [4, in Portuguese] seem promising and have
> produced more consensus than any previous proposals. To me, this
> method seems to:
> - resist alternations in classification along the same road
> - work across borders (where classification discontinuities are
> expected because each country is using different classification
> - account for road network topology
> - work in countries with mostly precarious/unpaved roads or
> without/unknown official highway classes
> - work between settlements as well as within settlements
> Borderline cases are probably inescapable in any system that does not
> use solely criteria that are directly verifiable - from the ground, or
> from the law. Maybe, in certain developed countries, the system is so
> well organized that merely checking signs/laws is sufficient. That
> does not mean it is like that everywhere on the planet.
> OSM has so far received a lot of input from communities in developed
> countries (mostly Europe, North America and Australia) and hasn't
> given much attention to less developed/organized countries. What comes
> closest to this is what the HOT Team does, but the judgment of road
> classification one can do from satellite images in a foreign country
> is much more limited than the criteria that have been raised in this
> thread so far.
> I wouldn't endorse tags such as maxspeed:practical due to lack of
> verifiability (it should be obvious that different types of vehicles
> would achieve different practical speeds). It is better to use the
> legal speed in maxspeed=* and describe the practical reason for a
> lower speed using surface=*, smoothness=*, and, who knows, maybe the
> not yet approved hazard=*  (though that is intended for signed
> hazards, not subjective/opinionated hazards).
> For the sake of long-term sanity, I also wouldn't mix the purpose of
> one tag with the purpose of other tags. To describe the surface, there
> is surface=*, smoothness=* and tracktype=*. To describe access rights,
> there is access=*, foot=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc. To
> describe legal speed, maxspeed=*. To describe curves, there's
> Purpose, perhaps, is the main issue. What is the purpose of highway
> classification? Is it to save us the work of adding extra tags? Is it
> to allow the renderer to produce a cleaner output at low zoom levels?
> Is it to allow routers to assume default speeds? Maybe to guide their
> routing heuristics? Is it to express some sort of importance? If so,
> by which perspective - urbanistic, traffic engineering, movement,
> commercial value, cultural/fame, historic, some combination of those?
> Should the purpose be the same in every country?
> It may be interesting to also discuss the classification adopted by
> other maps. I don't have a reference for Google (originally TeleAtlas)
> or Here.com (originally Navteq), but Waze publishes its per-country
> road classification criteria in its wiki. [6-16]
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ftrebien/Drafts/Gen
>  https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=674296#p674296
>  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Road_types
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/UnitedKingdom/Roads#Road_types
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Canada/Main_Page#Road_Types
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Commons/Road_Types/India
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Brazil/Como_categorizar_e_
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Germany/Kartenlegende_(Deutschland)
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/France/Classification_France
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Italy/Tipologia_delle_strade
>  https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Indonesia/Panduan_Tipe_Jalan
>  https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%B1%BB%E5%9E%8B
>  https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/%E3%80%8C%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%A8
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 99962-5409
> "Nullius in verba."
> talk mailing list
> talk mailing list
> talk mailing list
talk mailing list