<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
Hello everyone,<br>
<br>
The additional considerations seem well-thought-out to me.<br>
<br>
I've also went ahead and documented the designation values that were
proposed by Seav back in 2018. Are there any opinions on this?<br>
<br>
There are a few more important points that have been raised or at
least vaguely mentioned before but have never really been discussed.
<br>
____<br>
<br>
How should we classify roads on smaller islands that do not have any
single municipality or city that would meet the proposed population
criteria for primary roads? Currently there does not seem to be a
uniform approach. As specific examples we could look at the
following islands:<br>
Samal, population 105k, area 300 km2, currently secondary<br>
Ticao, population 90k, area 330 km2, currently secondary<br>
Burias, population 90k, area 420 km2, currently primary<br>
Sibuyan, population 40k, area 450 km2, currently primary<br>
Alabat, population 40k, area 200 km2, currently tertiary<br>
<br>
Should we just consider total island population? This would lead to
upgrade to primary in Samal, upgrade on Alabat to secondary and
downgrade to secondary on Burias and Sibuyan. Or should we not apply
population criteria here considering that for example Sibuyan
Circumferential road has a lenght of almost 100km? Personally I
would tend to option 2 as a limitation to only
secondary/tertiary/unclassified might be insufficient in
distinguishing relative importance of individual roads on such large
islands. <br>
<br>
Also, the main roads on three of these islands have been recently
downgraded by apple data team. In two cases (Samal and Alabat) new
classification does neither reflect old classification conventions
nor the ongoing proposal. While downgrade in case of Ticao seems
arbitrary given the almost identical population/area/road length as
Burias. Would anyone support reaching out to ADT about this?<br>
____<br>
<br>
Another aspect of classifications that I think we should specify are
roads under construction. Especially in cases of multi-year road
opening projects where roads already serve as footway, cycleway,
residential, unclassified or tertiary long before full connectivity
is achieved. Maybe we could start building a consensus on this by
analyzing specific situations:<br>
<br>
Example 1: Cauayan City Bypass Road
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/844417527">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/844417527</a>)<br>
Whole length is accesible by foot and bike, except 3 interruptions
by unfinished waterway crossings, one part of the alignment is an
existing section of unclassified road. Should we tag all sections
that are in partial use already with highway=primary with current
access restrictions/surface/width and only leave the unpassable
sections as highway=construction? Or should every section be tagged
by it's current usage?<br>
<br>
Example 2: Northern Section of Mindoro Circumferential Road
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/776641003">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/776641003</a>)<br>
Whole length is frequently traversed by cyclists and most likely
also motorbikes. Same question, should everything be tagged as
highway=primary with access restrictions/surface/width or should
unfinished sections be changed to unclassified and path? What about
the already finished sections in between Abra de Ilog Port and
Puerto Galera? Should they be downgraded to tertiary until
connectivity is achieved? <br>
<br>
I propose to use method 1 in case of major bypass roads in or near
urban areas (example 1) given that these usually really are
perceived as unfinished highways. On the other side I propose to use
method 2 for construction projects in rural areas (example 2)
considering that almost always these routes are replacing segments
of pre-existing local roads or trails and the local perceptions is
that there is no highway yet. <br>
____<br>
<br>
One last point regarding road naming, it would be good if we could
agree on an uniform approach about whether we should use spaces
before and after hyphens. This might seem like a trivial question,
but I think the current situation is a bit chaotic, especially for
long routes where variants might alternate multiple times along the
course. Sometimes there's even a third variant with em dashes (—).<br>
Example: Davao-Surigao Coastal Road vs. Davao - Surigao Coastal Road
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894848575">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894848575</a>)<br>
I'd like to propose that we stick to regular hyphens without spaces
to conform with the orthography in official records and documents. <br>
____<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Timmy_Tesseract<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/04/2021 03:19, Jherome Miguel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAFQ7s77mwX1z9+5pOkiVJdpr0GDxShsDkb9Dfe3y8KNnsgm-xA@mail.gmail.com">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Sorry for the late reply (having being more busy
mapping in Canada), but I have made several modifications to
the latest version of the proposal on the wiki. Some of these
are: </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- Additions of special considerations depending
on place type (use primary for highways to other
municipalities <i>that</i> are provincial capitals, prefer
using trunk on roads to large cities that are designated
regional centers or provincial capitals).</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">- Changes in <i>additional</i> definition of
trunk (use it for proposed regional high-standard highways
instead of any long expressway-like arterials like
Commonwealth or Quezon Ave, unless they're a bypass or
continuation of an existing trunk to connect to another). The
existing definition of highway between large cities or
metropolitan areas remains BTH.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">For the gap on Route 1 in Metro Manila, I think
we can better leave the gap as it is instead.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at
3:42 PM Jherome Miguel <<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div dir="auto">Hello again!
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">On the original proposal in the wiki (
<div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads/Classification" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads/Classification</a>),
I've proposed trunk will also be applied to any
road resembling an expressway, but I’ve changed
this to refer to expressway-standard roads (design
and access restrictions the same as expressway,
but may have intersections) that are not part of
the main expressway network and reserved the tag
for future adoption, in combination with
motorroad=yes.</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Looking back at discussions at the
wiki from 2007, I’ve been seeing what was the real
problem with the existing tagging scheme, that it
was based on the situation in Manila and large
cities (and surroundings). Our first classification
scheme was:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- Motorway - Expressways</div>
<div dir="auto">- Trunk - Major highways between major
cities</div>
<div dir="auto">- Primary - Other major roads linking
all other cities and towns</div>
<div dir="auto">- Secondary - Roads from the city or
town proper to other barangays</div>
<div dir="auto">- Tertiary: Main road within a
barangay</div>
<div dir="auto">- Unclassified: All others</div>
<div dir="auto">- Residential: Residential streets</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The 2015 scheme is not really a
version 2 as I first thought but involved
clarifications added since route numbering is
introduced 2014, plus the introduction of
living_street for very narrow but passable streets
as well as some streets full of vendors before the
2019 nationwide road clearings but are passable.
Continuing from above, there wasn’t any major
improvement; the definition of tertiary has been
clarified to be all other roads to barangays, but we
still kept the definition of secondary that limited
its primary use to urban contexts. In general, we
haven’t considered the situation in the countryside
in creating our road classification schemes.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Motorway - Expressways</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Trunk - Major highways between major cities</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Primary - Other major roads linking all other
cities and towns, and main access to City or gown
Center from trunk</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Secondary - Minor arteries, connecting city or
town proper and >=3 barangays.</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Tertiary: Collectors roads, and other roads
between barangays</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Unclassified: All others</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Residential: Residential streets</div>
<div dir="auto" style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">-
Living_street: Narrow but passable streets,
including those narrowed by obstructions.
Pedestrian priority <i>de facto</i>.</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">--TagaSanPedroAko</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 12,
2021, 5:05 AM Jherome Miguel, <<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto">It’s just a week since I have the
link to the incomplete</div>
<div dir="auto">map of proposed classifications, and
I and DP24 has been moving trunk routes away from
poblacion areas to bypasses where present as
appropriate (and considering this as well for
primaries). Anyone OK with this move? Some of the
reclassifications are also in the proposal map.</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 5,
2021 at 12:12 AM Jherome Miguel <<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">Here is the map for the
proposed reclassifications: <a href="https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/philippines-proposed-road-classifications_570794" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/philippines-proposed-road-classifications_570794</a>
. Map is still being worked on; I have
completed mapping the rationalized trunk
road network for North Luzon, including
some ongoing bypass road projects and
some primary and secondary roads. All
cities and large municipalities (with
populations of 100,000+) have been
pinpointed for the purpose of
determining the best classification.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at
8:50 PM Jherome Miguel <<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div dir="auto">I see your
argument, considering the
expressways are a separate
network from national roads,
nevertheless we should better
rationalize the trunk road
network in Cavite.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">So, continuing on,
we still have the gap on Route 1
gap through Metro Manila. Route
1 abruptly ends at EDSA-Roxas
Boulevard and begins again at
Alabang, and it remains to be
seen how will DPWH bridge it.
What would you suggest to
upgrade to trunk? </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- Option 1:
(continuing from Roxas
Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194,
Seaside Drive-Quirino Ave),
Quirino and Diego Cera avenues
(Route 62), and Alabang-Zapote
Road (Route 411, Zapote-Alabang)</div>
<div dir="auto">- Option 2:
(continuing from toll-free
Osmeña Highway) East and West
Service Roads</div>
<div dir="auto">- Option 3:
(continuing from Roxas
Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194,
Seaside Drive-Ninoy Aquino),
Ninoy Aquino Avenue (Route 195),
Dr. A. Santos Avenue/Sucat Road
(Route 63), East Service Road</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">If we’re to go
with bridging the Route 1 gap, I
would think it’s Option 1,
considering that’s the
historical route out of Manila
before the expressways opened,
though the roads are somewhat
narrow and are mostly local
streets.</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’m currently
creating a web map of the proposed
classification using UMap, though
I’m still in the process of
pinpointing the cities and
municipalities.</div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed,
Mar 3, 2021 at 4:21 PM
Eugene Alvin Villar <<a href="mailto:seav80@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">seav80@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I don't see the logic
of downgrading trunk
roads merely because
there is a parallel
expressway. Our
expressways are toll=yes
roads and if these
expressways did not
exist, then these trunk
roads would correctly be
tagged as highway=trunk.
I think that we
disregard the existence
of highway=motorway
roads for the purposes
of classifying the rest
of the road network.
Many people for various
reasons want to avoid
going through toll roads
and having highway=trunk
roads as an indicator of
suitable alternate
routes is important.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at
4:51 AM Jherome Miguel
<<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto">Continuing
on, I raised this
unanswered question
about downgrading
trunks where
significantly
bypassed by a
parallel expressway
(unless it has a
significant section
resembling an
expressway as in
proposal). I
thinking of doing
that for these road
segments currently
tagged trunk.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">-
National
Highway/Maharlika
Highway/<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Manila+South+Road+(Route+1,+Muntinlupa?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Manila
South Road (Route
1, Muntinlupa</a>-Calamba-STAR
Santo Tomas exit) —
bypassed by SLEX</div>
<div dir="auto">- JP
Laurel
Highway/Manila-Batangas
Road (Route 4, Santo
Tomas-Batangas City)
— bypassed by STAR
Tollway</div>
<div dir="auto">-
MacArthur Highway
(Route 1,
Caloocan-Tabang,
Guiguinto) —
bypassed by NLEX</div>
<div dir="auto">- <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Osme%C3%B1a+Highway+(Route+145?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Osmeña
Highway (Route 145</a>)
and <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Quirino+Avenue+(Route+140,+Roxas+Boulevard?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Quirino
Avenue (Route 140,
Roxas Boulevard</a>-Osmeña
Highway) — bypassed
by Skyway</div>
<div dir="auto">—
Olongapo-San
Fernando-Gapan Road/<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Jose+Abad+Santos+Avenue+(Route+3,+Dinalupihan?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Jose
Abad Santos Avenue
(Route 3,
Dinalupihan</a>
Junction-Olongapo) —
bypassed by SCTEX</div>
<div dir="auto">— <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Manila+North+Road+(Route+2?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Manila
North Road (Route
2</a>, TPLEX
Urdaneta exit-Kennon
Road)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">(for
future downgrades,
once new parallel
expressway under
construction opens.
Might need some
discussion)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">— <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Aguinaldo+Highway+(Route+62%2F419,+Bacoor?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Aguinaldo
Highway (Route
62/419, Bacoor</a>-Dasma-Tagaytay)
— to be bypassed by
CALAX. Will also
downgrade all the
remaining trunks in
Cavite.</div>
<div dir="auto">—
Antero Soriano
Highway/Centennial
Road/<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Tanza-Trece+Martires+Road+(Route+64?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Tanza-Trece
Martires Road
(Route 64</a>,
Kawit-Tanza-Trece
Martires) — <span>to
be bypassed by
CALAX. Will also
downgrade all the
remaining trunks
in <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Cavite.+%E2%80%94+Governor%E2%80%99s+Drive+(Route+65,+Dasma?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Cavite.</a></span></div>
<div dir="auto"><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Cavite.+%E2%80%94+Governor%E2%80%99s+Drive+(Route+65,+Dasma?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">—
Governor’s Drive
(Route 65, Dasma</a>-Biñan)
— <span>to be
bypassed by CALAX.
Will also
downgrade all the
remaining trunks
in Cavite.</span></div>
<div dir="auto">— <a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/Tarlac-Santa+Rosa+Road+(Route+58?entry=gmail&source=g" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Tarlac-Santa
Rosa Road (Route
58</a>) — to be
bypassed by CLLEX
(downgrade to be
done once whole
Tarlac
City-Cabanatuan
route is opened)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Beside
that, I’ll prepare
maps (for Luzon,
Metro Manila, Panay,
Negros, Cebu, Samar
and Leyte, and
Mindanao)<span> of
routes to be
classified trunk
using the proposed
criteria. There is
a significant need
to rationalize the
trunk networks,
especially in the
less populated
islands or
regions. </span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">From there, we go on to determine the
primaries and so
on. I’ll also post
a</span> list of
major roads and
their proposed
future
classifications (to
be divided by region
and province) on the
wiki. Any further
comment or feedback
is welcome here or
on the wiki.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On
Tue, Mar 2, 2021
at 11:54 AM
Jherome Miguel
<<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto">For
names, I agree
there is a
problem.
Posted road
name can be
inconsistent
across
different
jurisdictions
or even within
the same
jurisdiction.
That’s the
reason we need
to review how
we map street
names (we rely
too much on
road signs).
There’s a lot
of instances
the road signs
omit suffixes
(especially
“Street/St”)
while the
addresses use
the full name.
We seem to
forget a
road’s name=
is also used
for
addr:street=.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The
main point
behind the
proposed
guidelines is
to better
align PH
practice with
global tagging
practices. We
have a road
classification
system that
is too
watered down
and is
somewhat only
appropriate to
urban areas.
Our practice
on naming
roads had
rather
preferred
short names to
reduce clutter
and deter
mappers who
abbreviate
them, but that
somewhat
raises issues
about mapping
for the
renderer
(whether to
keep,
abbreviate or
remove street
name affixes
is up to
them), plus,
we’ve got into
the problem of
relying too
much on street
signs,
forgetting
some roads
have no names
posted on any
official road
sign and the
name
verifiable
from asking
locals or
finding posted
addresses, and
addresses
posted on
business signs
(or even their
ads, business
cards and
things) should
be used as
sources as
well.</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:09 AM Michael Cole <<a href="mailto:colemichae@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">colemichae@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div dir="auto">We
have a problem
with names
even 1 way
streets, real
law vs
locality. And
i live in
poblacion mkt,
mmda break the
actual law,
who is
correct? Do we
take the word
of corodiles
over the
country
or.enforce the
law and get
people.arrested
fined
illegally?
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">My
2 cents .. </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 1:23 PM Jherome Miguel, <<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jheromemiguel@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div>
<div>Hi all,
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">After
somewhat slow
progress to
gather ideas
and feedback
for a new road
classification
scheme, I
finally
decided to
write the
final version
of the new
tagging scheme
at: <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads</a>
(see
“Classification”
section)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The
proposal is
planned to
replace those
at
<div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions</a> (sections,
“Roads”,
“Names”)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><b>Why? </b>The
existing road
classification
scheme since
2015 needs a
major rewrite
since I’m
seeing major
problems with
the tree
analogy used
to justify the
existing
scheme. Why
use primary
for every road
to each
municipality
regardless of
its population
size (just
because
they’re a
branch or an
alternate to a
trunk)?
Shouldn’t we
use trunks
only on the
most important
highway links
between the
largest cities
beside the
expressways?
Many of our
provinces lack
secondaries in
the rural area
but do have
lots of
tertiaries
surrounded by
trunk and
primary roads
(and a total
lack of
secondary
roads). Lots
of Philippines
mappers
(including me)
ignore that
bad scheme,
which just
came to effect
without
discussion or
consultation.
It’s also time
for us to take
community
population
sizes as well
as
designations
in account
when
classifying
roads.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Also,
guidelines
about road
names are to
be affected as
well
(following
latest
discussion).
This includes
changes in the
existing
guideline to
prefer full
names as used
in addresses
(since names
posted in
street signs
can be
inconsistent).
One open
question is on
how to name
many of the
major rural
roads without
posted names
(national
roads aside,
whose names,
unless the
locally
verifiable
posted name is
different, can
be found from
the DPWH road
database)
until their
actual names
are verified.
For me, it’s
in the form
“<most
important
community>-<less
important
community>
Road”, though
I also
experimented
with adding
noname=yes
instead of
adding
placeholder
names using
the format
mentioned
above.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Any
comments/suggestion/feedback on this are welcome here or on the
article’s talk
page.</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thanks,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">_______________________________________________<br>
talk-ph
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">talk-ph@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk-ph mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">talk-ph@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org">talk-ph@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>