<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Those roads caught my eye, as I know them both.</p>
<p>They're both a little odd. The first (my ex lived on Moseley
road 20+ years ago) looks like it should be an A road - it's a
continuation of the A6010 Wilbraham Road connecting to the A34,
but the A6010 turns north and becomes Wilmslow Road (before
turning east again to meet the A34, but the capacity isn't great
IIRC).<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>At Shap (I cycled some of that B6261 last month onto the A6),
it's a short link between two important (deliberately vague term)
routes. I'm pretty sure the designation "B6261" predates the
existence of the M6, so the numbering was kept the same, but the
road grew in importance. This is common, the redesignation as
primary isn't. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Funnily enough the OS maps aren't consistent here: the 1:50,000
shows the B6261 as primary (green, as the A6), while the 1:25,000
uses the B road orange. In Manchester the dual carriageway B road
is orange on the 1:50,000 as well.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Chris<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/09/2021 10:09, Barry McGuire
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALtKTKnOEwW6G5xx5eJWZqOkbFPA+WJi3-wPkpyhxbhii6XOZw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">Hi Paul,
<div dir="auto"> to the A6010</div>
<div dir="auto">There are two sections of primary B roads that
I've been able to find, which is against the Government's own
advice for primary routes:
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">* B5093
Mosley Road, Fallowfield, Manchester is designated as a
primary route and is also a B road.</span><br
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">
<span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">* B6261
at Shap, Cumbria linking A6 to M6 is designated as a
primary route and is also a B road.</span><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">The
proposed change would make UK OSM consistent with the
global OSM terminology (i.e. a trunk road is a high
performance or high importance road that doesn't meet the
requirements for motorway). Many of the UK's primary
routes (tagged on OSM as 'trunk') are relatively minor
roads (single carriageway, multiple roundabouts, 30mph
limits) and there is no way those should be classed as
'trunk'. There are some non-strategic primary routes that
are dual carriageways with grade separated junctions and
national speed limit (i.e. OSM 'trunk' standard), but
they're in the minority.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px">The
proposed change has the added benefit of making the UK OSM
definition consistent with UK terminology, which has long
term benefits.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12.8px">It has been noted that OS maps
distinguish between primary and non-primary. Is the
global aim of OSM to replicate in-country mapping
standards or to create a consistent map as possible
globally? The guidance for East Africa states "In Kenya,
despite the official designation International Trunk
Roads, most of type A roads are not trunks as defined by
OSM. The vast majority of Kenyan A roads must fall into
the category highway=primary." To me this indicates OSM
is aiming for a consistent standard internationally, and
currently the UK (well, mostly just England) sticks out
as not applying the 'trunk' tag to the required
standards.</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12.8px">As Tom said this is a matter
that keeps being raised so it's clearly a persistent
issue that needs resolving.</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12.8px"><br>
</span></font></div>
<div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:12.8px">Barry</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, 09:21
Paul Berry, <<a href="mailto:pmberry2007@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">pmberry2007@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">> Retaining the current system produces
the quirks mentioned previously e.g. primary B roads and
routes between primary destinations not being primary,
which are difficult to handle - in fact each of the
primary B roads are designated differently on OSM (one as
trunk and one as secondary).</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>If you're going to open this can of worms, at least get
your definitions right. There's no such thing as a primary
B road. Only A roads can be primary and non-primary.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The system isn't great but there's a lot to be said for
OSM in being consistent, even if it's not as we would have
designed it if we were starting from scratch. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Pick your battles wisely.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><i>Paul</i></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>