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 <lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com>
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 <fernando.treb...@gmail.com
> > 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 <djakk.dj...@gmail.com>
>> 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 <
>> lieskovsky.ma...@gmail.com>
>> > 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 <djakk.dj...@gmail.com>
>> 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
>> >>> <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 [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
>> >>>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> talk mailing list
>> >>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > talk mailing list
>> > talk@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Fernando Trebien
>> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>>
>> "Nullius in verba."
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Reply via email to