<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>Yes, I agree that I don’t really like the way that Taconic State Parkway switches between motorway and trunk so frequently. IMO, if there is a stretch of road that’s mostly a freeway where there’s an at-grade intersection sandwiched in between multiple interchanges, then and only then am I okay with tagging the road as trunk until the road reaches an interchange. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Evin</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:theangrytomato@gmail.com">Bradley White</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, January 26, 2021 7:13 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com">kevin.b.kenny@gmail.com</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">OpenStreetMap talk-us list</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Talk-us] Motorway vs trunk classification for RI-4 and US-1 in Rhode Island</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>> There are cases where a freeway continues for some miles between the last</p><p class=MsoNormal>> elevated interchange and the first at-grade crossing, and adheres to</p><p class=MsoNormal>> Interstate standards (or nearly so) for nearly all of that distance. I'd</p><p class=MsoNormal>> tend to continue 'motorway' up to about where the first sign warns that the</p><p class=MsoNormal>> freeway is about to end (or, say, 3 km back, if I don't know where the</p><p class=MsoNormal>> warning starts).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This logic is, unfortunately, what leads to the tagging silliness you</p><p class=MsoNormal>describe going on with the Taconic State Parkway (which I agree is</p><p class=MsoNormal>tagged horribly, and is a fantastic case study of why trying to tag</p><p class=MsoNormal>every segment of divided, high speed road with a grade-separated</p><p class=MsoNormal>interchange as 'motorway' leads to bad tagging results).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>There should be a continuity requirement for 'motorway' tagging,</p><p class=MsoNormal>especially in the U.S. where there is a robust, national standard for</p><p class=MsoNormal>what a freeway looks like. Two grade-separated interchanges in a row</p><p class=MsoNormal>on a divided highway should be an absolute minimum for tagging that</p><p class=MsoNormal>particular section as 'motorway'. Trunk roads *also* may be high</p><p class=MsoNormal>speed, divided roads with ramp access. If I get on a divided highway</p><p class=MsoNormal>via an on-ramp, and the next intersection I encounter 5 miles down the</p><p class=MsoNormal>road is an at-grade, was I really on a freeway? (Again: 'trunk' roads</p><p class=MsoNormal>_may_ be high speed, divided roads with ramp access) If so, then</p><p class=MsoNormal>tagging short segments near at-grade intersections as 'trunk' on what</p><p class=MsoNormal>is otherwise a 'motorway' makes perfect sense. If you have an at-grade</p><p class=MsoNormal>sandwiched between a sequence of grade-separated interchanges, there</p><p class=MsoNormal>is no non-silly way to tag it using this schema.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The simplest way to fix this problem is to require anything tagged as</p><p class=MsoNormal>'motorway' to be continuous (have a *minimum* of two grade-separated</p><p class=MsoNormal>interchanges in a row, ideally three) and to ramp access only, with</p><p class=MsoNormal>the main roadway being treated conceptually as a "ramp" for the sake</p><p class=MsoNormal>of determining where to switch between 'trunk' and 'motorway'. That is</p><p class=MsoNormal>to say, if you turn right onto a high speed, divided highway via an</p><p class=MsoNormal>at-grade intersection, it's not a 'motorway' until the first ramp</p><p class=MsoNormal>merges with the highway, _assuming_ that there is at least one other</p><p class=MsoNormal>grade-separated interchange afterwards.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This approach is about as on-the-ground as it gets, and does not rely</p><p class=MsoNormal>on "begin/end freeway" signage, which may or may not be present. An</p><p class=MsoNormal>aside: there are a handful of cases in California at least where</p><p class=MsoNormal>"freeway entrance" signage is posted at the on-ramps of two-lane,</p><p class=MsoNormal>grade separated highways, which do not meet the OSM standard for</p><p class=MsoNormal>'motorway' (CA 154/192, CA 108). I would therefore disagree with using</p><p class=MsoNormal>freeway begin/end/entrance signage to determine conclusively what</p><p class=MsoNormal>should be tagged as a 'motorway'.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________</p><p class=MsoNormal>Talk-us mailing list</p><p class=MsoNormal>Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</p><p class=MsoNormal>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>