I haven't done much mapping for some time and would be happy to abide by whatever you come up with if I ever get back into it.<br><br>My labelling of roads was generally around their physical attributes and whether they led anywhere important (ie. Glen Osmond road leads from the freeway to the city) but I always had doubts over whether I was doing the right thing. <br>
<br>I wish you luck in attempting to define some standards,<br><br>~Cameron (Justcameron)<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/03/2008, <b class="gmail_sendername">Darrin Smith</b> <<a href="mailto:beldin@beldin.org">beldin@beldin.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:52:00 +1100<br> Ian Sergeant <<a href="mailto:isergean@hih.com.au">isergean@hih.com.au</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > Anyway, rest assured this is a "live debate". Check out<br> > <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative/physical_descriptions">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Highway_administrative/physical_descriptions</a><br>
<br> That's an interesting page, good to see people are addressing that<br> issue on a global level. Should that proposal go through it<br> automatically eliminates one of the options as 'valid' ... Shall have<br>
to keep an eye on it.<br> <br> > > <discussion of reference definition, vs physical definition><br> <br> > <Ian's comments><br> <br> OK, in a sense it's good to see people as unsure as I am :)<br>
<br> > However, in rural areas of NSW, the system doesn't work so well. If<br> > you use the reference method, you will find that there are a handful<br> > of state highways, a couple of auslink roads, and that leaves 99% of<br>
> all the roads without a reference classification. This would<br> > dramatically reduce the usefulness of the resulting map to use a<br> > reference classification. Most roads would look the same. Many main<br>
> routes between towns have no reference classification at all.<br> <br> Perhaps NSW will one day get it's funding to finish the MABC roll-out,<br> that might help a lot, but yes until then I don't envy your position.<br>
South Australia is a little better off with a nicely defined set of A &<br> B roads to guide things along.<br> <br> > It would be nice if Australia had a reference system that would work<br> > comprehensively. It doesn't, and that leaves us always requiring a<br>
> certain element of subjectivity.<br> <br> 3 States have (TAS, VIC, SA), 2 are part way there (NSW & QLD), it's a<br> start :)<br> <br> > I would say - if there is a workable reference system for a particular<br>
> area, then it is best to use the reference system, and make a<br> > correspondence to the OSM types. Document the area and the reference<br> > system on the wiki, and coordinate a discussion to ensure there is a<br>
> consensus for that area.<br> <br> Right this is where I kind of got to with Adelaide, I guess my first<br> email was a call out to start such a discussion so I'll change the<br> subject to reflect that...<br> <br>
> If you can come up with a practical, yet unambiguous and objective,<br> > system for all of Australia, that would be great. Short of laying<br> > seige to the roads departments and councils, I don't think that is<br>
> going to happen.<br> <br> Yeah, that's a good dream that one :)<br> <br> > I'm sure if you have ideas for improvement, or a<br> > workable reference system for Adelaide, then you just need to<br> > convince people of the benefits, and update the doco.<br>
<br> OK, to take this a step further I'll start the ball rolling in Adelaide:<br> (As we get a consensus I'll write a Adelaide/South Australia Wiki page<br> to reflect the decisions, I'm happy to do that)<br>
<br> 1) Trunk Roads in City<br> <br> I propose that all "A" routes in Adelaide and only "A" Routes are<br> labelled trunk.<br> <br> I can understand some hesitation from people with respect to the A22,<br>
parts of the A16 because they are low quality roads, but if we're going<br> to tag to a reference pattern they need to fit.<br> <br> 2) Definition of rural vs city area<br> <br> I propose that the area bounded by lines joining Two Wells, Gawler,<br>
Birdwood, Mount Barker, Willunga, Aldinga and the Coast line are<br> defined as "City" area, and that areas outside these are considered<br> "Rural" (We can define other "city" areas around Mount<br>
Gambier/Whyalla/Whatever if people have definitions?). I think the<br> current Rural definitions as provided on the Wiki are pretty close to<br> spot on for these areas.<br> <br> 3) Primary Roads in City:<br> <br> There are about 5 "B" Roads inside the definition of the city area,<br>
otherwise there's a whole bunch of roads in the city itself which<br> server the cross-city tasks the road definition suggests these should<br> be. However I think there are currently way too many roads in Adelaide<br>
marked as primary which AREN'T serving significant cross-suburb<br> purposes (Prospect Road is one that immediately comes to mind). I would<br> like to suggest we the mappers of Adelaide draw up a list of "Primary"<br>
roads which are the only ones that should be marked primary.<br> <br> 4) Further levels: For later, a few steps at a time :)<br> <br> I'm particularly would like input from those guys mapping lots<br> of Adelaide with me (jackb, justcameron, adhoc?) since you guys and I<br>
will tread on each others toes if we're not seeing eye-to-eye.<br> <br><br> --<br> <br> =b<br> <br> _______________________________________________<br> Talk-au mailing list<br> <a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk-au</a><br> </blockquote></div><br>