<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
I think the fundamental problem is that we have too many tags for a
functional classification scheme. If trunk isn't going to be a
limited access highway then perhaps it's redundant. Another option
is to remove unclassified. Since we probably won't remove a
redundant tag with a history, the renderers need to sort out the
overlap. <br>
<br>
This is my take:<br>
Looking at the roads for my state of Colorado (& recently
traveled areas in UT, AZ, NM) I think the highways could be
reasonable be tagged as:<br>
<ul>
<li> US highways: Primary</li>
<li> State highways: Secondary</li>
<li> County Roads: Tertiary, Unclassified, or Residential<br>
</li>
<li> Forest Service & BLM roads: Unclassified or track,
maybe a few tertiary.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Using this criteria, it seems to meet the OSM wiki spec of 'The
most important roads', 'The next most important roads', etc.
There may be exceptions, but nothing seemed obvious to me
inspecting my current home area, or previous home areas, or places
I've driven. </p>
<p>You could also classify as US highway:Trunk, CO
highways:Primary. That would work, but then the lower classes
are difficult to classify (too many choices). Perhaps then
unclassified is redundant. <br>
</p>
I noticed that the mapper who lit off this email chain, oregonian3,
recently changed many roads in Colorado (in addition to the roads in
northern CO that Mike T noticed) from primary to trunk. At least
one of those was changed back to primary by another mapper.<br>
<br>
Early in the email trail someone pointed out the the OSM carto issue
with a trunk road disappearing when it changed to primary. I think
that is a problem with OSM carto, a trunk and a primary should show
up on the same level. <br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/17/21 3:54 PM, Brian M.
Sperlongano wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx0zJLXX+kSV+jkTeDqVGx5rx2QM0kTQ06A6oSWaxgOhrQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Hi Folks,<br>
</div>
<br>
I'd like to provide the community an update on the work that's
been happening to improve the current state of US highway
classifications. Following the recent talk-us threads, there
were extensive debates in Slack, especially in the
#local-us-northeast channel, about how to better apply the
highway classification values with international norms,
especially the trunk classification, which seems to be the most
challenging.<br>
<br>
There was a strong consensus initially amongst New England
mappers that the highway classifications should be used in a way
that's consistent with the connectivity importance of various
roads. There was also a general agreement that documenting
state-specific highway classification criteria was important for
preventing edit wars as well as documenting edge or unusual
cases and the rationale behind them.<br>
<br>
The outcome of those discussions was the following wiki page[1],
which offers general guidelines that can be applied in
state-specific ways to come up with criteria that mappers can
follow. As part of these discussions, local mappers have been
drafting state-specific pages that would implement these general
guidelines. State-specific criteria have been drafted so far
for: MA, MS, NH, RI, VT, TX, and WA.<br>
<br>
In order to demonstrate what the new classification would look
like on the map, the New England mappers have put together a
temporary live demo[2] which shows what this new arrangement
would look like at the motorway and trunk level. This demo is
set up to show the proposed "new" highway classification
alignment in *four* New England states only: VT, NH, MA, and
RI. The rest of the country is shown with no change to highway
classification. In addition, this demo map is rigged to show
motorway/trunk at their normal zoom levels, but suppress
highway=secondary until zoomed in close, in order to
specifically examine the motorway/trunk network in better
detail.<br>
<br>
Links:<br>
<br>
[1] <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Highway_classification"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Highway_classification</a><br>
[2] <a
href="http://74.97.52.189:6789/openstreetmap-carto/#7/43.250/-70.756"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://74.97.52.189:6789/openstreetmap-carto/#7/43.250/-70.756</a><br>
<br>
I offer this update as an invitation to further collaboration on
how we might better map highway classifications in the US.<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>