Don’t worry, when the official system is good, lik in Czechia, it matches Fernando’s suggestion :)
djakk Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 18:32, Matej Lieskovský <[email protected]> a écrit : > Don't get me wrong, this system might work well for countries without an > official system, but what do you expect to happen in the EU? > Will we have "highway=primary" + "class=tertiary" because some random road > happens to be a shortcut? Or do you expect us in Czechia to use "class=II" > while germans use "class=S" so that it actually matches the signage? Will > the renderer parse ref numbers (and ignore the main tag) or will we receive > hundreds of complaints about some section of the road having (what every > local resident will consider to be) the wrong class? > > How do you determine "important cities" when even the line between towns > and cities is country-dependant? Or is using administrative differences > only not OK for roads? > > Even Waze actually follows local administration. > > > Long story short: I am strongly against deploying this system in countries > with a functioning official classification system. > > On 23 February 2018 at 18:06, Fernando Trebien <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Administrative classification is not strictly related everywhere to >> signage, structure and access rights. >> >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 1:12 PM, djakk djakk <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I know that « trunk » is country-dependent but why not moving it to a >> > worldwide definition ? Administrative classification could be moved to >> other >> > tags :) >> > >> > >> > djakk >> > >> > Le ven. 23 févr. 2018 à 16:06, Matej Lieskovský < >> [email protected]> >> > a écrit : >> >> >> >> Greetings >> >> 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 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hello, >> >>> >> >>> I totally agree with you, the definition you provide, >> >>> administrative-free, tends to the same osm map between countries. >> >>> >> >>> djakk >> >>> >> >>> Le jeu. 15 févr. 2018 à 19:18, Fernando Trebien >> >>> <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>>> >> >>>> Landing on this discussion several months late. I've just heard of it >> >>>> by reading a wiki talk page [1]. >> >>>> >> >>>> Since 13 February 2009, the wiki [2] 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 [3] >> 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 >> >>>> criteria) >> >>>> - 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=* [5] (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 >> >>>> geometry. >> >>>> >> >>>> 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] >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] >> >>>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtrunk#change_.22high_performance.22_to_.22high_importance.22 >> >>>> [2] >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability#Problematic_tags >> >>>> [3] >> >>>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Ftrebien/Drafts/Generic_highway_classification_principles#Schematic_diagram_and_general_comments >> >>>> [4] https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=674296#p674296 >> >>>> [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard >> >>>> [6] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/USA/Road_types >> >>>> [7] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/UnitedKingdom/Roads#Road_types >> >>>> [8] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Canada/Main_Page#Road_Types >> >>>> [9] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Commons/Road_Types/India >> >>>> [10] >> >>>> >> https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Brazil/Como_categorizar_e_nomear_vias >> >>>> [11] >> >>>> https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Germany/Kartenlegende_(Deutschland) >> >>>> [12] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/France/Classification_France >> >>>> [13] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Italy/Tipologia_delle_strade >> >>>> [14] https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/Indonesia/Panduan_Tipe_Jalan >> >>>> [15] https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%B1%BB%E5%9E%8B >> >>>> [16] >> >>>> >> https://wiki.waze.com/wiki/%E3%80%8C%E9%81%93%E8%B7%AF%E7%A8%AE%E5%88%A5%E3%80%8D >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Fernando Trebien >> >>>> +55 (51) 99962-5409 >> >>>> >> >>>> "Nullius in verba." >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> talk mailing list >> >>>> [email protected] >> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> talk mailing list >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > talk mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Fernando Trebien >> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >> >> "Nullius in verba." >> > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
