<div dir="ltr">Anthony - thanks for this fascinating bit of Interstate trivia. I was totally unaware about these cases. I found a comprehensive list of exceptions on Wikipedia, and there's far more than I realized:<div><br></div><div><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways#At-grade_intersections">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_gaps_in_Interstate_Highways#At-grade_intersections</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Would we be okay with something like:</div><div>- Downgrading a section of Interstate to trunk for all cases on the "Major at-grade intersections" and "Other at-grade intersections" list</div><div>- Retaining motorway for all cases on the "minor at-grade intersections", "Undivided and narrow freeways", and "movable bridges" list</div><div><br></div><div>This is a total of 31 (!) special cases. My hope is that we can come to a consensus on which tag to apply on a category basis.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 2:38 AM Anthony Costanzo <<a href="mailto:acjames28@gmail.com">acjames28@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>One thing I recommend changing: in the draft wiki entry, there is a provision where "signed Interstate highways" are to be tagged as motorway regardless of their physical characteristics. This provision should be removed.</div><div><br></div><div>Almost all of the signed interstate highway system meets the physical characteristics outlined, however where there are rare exceptions the map should show them as such. As the entry is written, there would, for example, be an expectation to tag as motorway:<br></div><div>- I-78 in Jersey City, NJ, which is a one-way pair of surface streets for several blocks</div><div>- I-70 in Breezewood, PA, which (in)famously passes through a couple signalized intersections as it leaves the Pennsylvania Turnpike</div><div>- I-180 in Cheyenne, WY, which is entirely an at-grade urban boulevard</div><div><br></div><div>All three of the above examples are currently tagged as trunk, and I would argue should remain so. In spite of being part of the interstate system, and signed as such, they are very much not motorways and not even almost-motorways.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 17:54:32 -0400<br>
From: "Brian M. Sperlongano" <<a href="mailto:zelonewolf@gmail.com" target="_blank">zelonewolf@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: talk-us <<a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Subject: [Talk-us] Update on potential highway classification reform<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAMrfQx0zJLXX%2BkSV%2BjkTeDqVGx5rx2QM0kTQ06A6oSWaxgOhrQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">CAMrfQx0zJLXX+kSV+jkTeDqVGx5rx2QM0kTQ06A6oSWaxgOhrQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi Folks,<br>
<br>
I'd like to provide the community an update on the work that's been<br>
happening to improve the current state of US highway classifications.<br>
Following the recent talk-us threads, there were extensive debates in<br>
Slack, especially in the #local-us-northeast channel, about how to better<br>
apply the highway classification values with international norms,<br>
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<br>
highway classifications should be used in a way that's consistent with the<br>
connectivity importance of various roads. There was also a general<br>
agreement that documenting state-specific highway classification criteria<br>
was important for preventing edit wars as well as documenting edge or<br>
unusual cases and the rationale behind them.<br>
<br>
The outcome of those discussions was the following wiki page[1], which<br>
offers general guidelines that can be applied in state-specific ways to<br>
come up with criteria that mappers can follow. As part of these<br>
discussions, local mappers have been drafting state-specific pages that<br>
would implement these general guidelines. State-specific criteria have<br>
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<br>
map, the New England mappers have put together a temporary live demo[2]<br>
which shows what this new arrangement would look like at the motorway and<br>
trunk level. This demo is set up to show the proposed "new" highway<br>
classification alignment in *four* New England states only: VT, NH, MA, and<br>
RI. The rest of the country is shown with no change to highway<br>
classification. In addition, this demo map is rigged to show<br>
motorway/trunk at their normal zoom levels, but suppress highway=secondary<br>
until zoomed in close, in order to specifically examine the motorway/trunk<br>
network in better detail.<br>
<br>
Links:<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Highway_classification" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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<br>
might better map highway classifications in the US.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div>