<div dir="auto">Have restored the 2019 conventions, with further notes it’s not formally approved in Talk-ph but is now the accepted usage. It’s a simplified version of the full guide that was the draft one.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:22 PM Jherome Miguel <<a href="mailto:jheromemiguel@gmail.com">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">The reason behind it is because the changes was not the consensus. It was around 2019, and there’s that edit war that got me blocked for one day; the proposed changes is still on the drafting table that time. I restored the 2015 guidelines and provided a link to the draft from there, but I didn’t know the draft convention has been accepted widely, even if it’s not formally approved here in talk-PH. That being said, we can still discuss any further bite-size refinements here, as well any possibly contentious reclassifications (including those that has been planned, see the linked uMap on the wiki).</div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 10:45 AM Timeo Gut <<a href="mailto:timeo.gut@hotmail.com" target="_blank">timeo.gut@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><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>
Hello Jherome, <br>
<br>
I just noticed now the <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines%2FMapping_conventions&type=revision&diff=2120307&oldid=2119874" target="_blank">changes</a>
that you made to the classifications table on the main mapping
conventions page. You basically removed all the refinement and
updates that have been made over the last 5 years (by yourself and
by others). Besides the questionable deleting of a lot of important
details, I find it very confusing that you reintroduced definitions
that have been replaced almost two years ago. These old definitions
do not reflect current usage anymore.<br>
<br>
While never formally approved, by observing how classifications are
applied by mappers it seems clear that the changes were widely
accepted. <br>
<br>
I think it would be best to restore the March 1 version of the table
and then proceed from there with bite-sized modifications whenever
further refinement is appropriate. <br></div><div>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 2021-07-04 12:29, Jherome Miguel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">Continuing on, I would also like to bring up
some points back on the earlier discussion at the git (see
<div dir="auto"><a href="https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38" target="_blank">https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38</a>)</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology
for determining trunk roads. Particularly problematic is
using the tree-trunk analogy (a.k.a. “scissors test”) to
determine trunk roads. I completely disagree with that for
it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to trunk because
it’s being an critical link for movement of goods in one’s
opinion, and led to primary and below its “branches”. I
agree trunk roads are generally vital highway links, but
this time, we need a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the
route should a key road link between major population
centers (i.e. large cities). </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Another problem back in the first discussions
on possible reform of the existing scheme back in 2018 is
regarding the designation national road. Yeah, I agree it’s
more of a funding classification, but during that time, I
haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses (national
primary, national secondary, national tertiary) as found in
the DPWH department order I referenced, which has defining
functional criteria that is of relevance in OSM, resulting
to the argument to deemphasize official designation and use
informal tests that would only worsen the problem with the
already dense trunk road network. Add to the problem is the
presence of two proposals, one by me (which is based on
multiple factors) and one by Erwin (which ties OSM
classification with gov’t designation).</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Beyond that, I just realized after digging
into older discussions in the wiki that the existing road
classification schemes documented in the wiki are more of
suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any discussion
here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal
guidelines; these suggestion became guidelines as mappers
begin to take them as such. Again, the prevailing scheme <span>the
from 2015 is being more of an amendment to the
pre-existing scheme.</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="auto"><span>Until we reach any agreement here, we
would be following the existing classification scheme, but
taking note these are more of suggestions or rough
guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying
these. I would also tag the existing scheme documented in
the wiki as containing conflicting, controversial or
outdated information. </span></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre style="font-family:monospace">_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
<a href="mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">talk-ph@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph" target="_blank" style="font-family:monospace">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk-ph mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk-ph@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-ph@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div>