<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hey Adam & all,<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/20/2021 4:12 PM, Adam Franco
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMN3sBfgMhJ789aEpYhnifXMkmE4m3Ah2Oysg150MDqjKP3MUg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Thanks, Martijn. <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>
<p>What do you expect to happen next? Do you plan to have
a wiki vote like people do on tagging? When is the
discussion "concluded"? And after that, what do you want
to happen with the existing classifications? Will you be
proposing some sort of organized editing to update
important roads throughout the country? <br>
</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>While I'm open to a wiki vote I don't know that it is
necessary for this update to the US-specific and
state-specific roadway classification wiki pages and
starting some sort of organized update. That said, if US
mappers reading this mailing list would like to see a vote
to confirm consensus, then I won't stand in the way of it.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>Whatever the trigger is for a "conclusion of discussion"
I think the next step would be to update the US wiki pages
with the new classification guidance, copy in the existing
State drafts to their respective pages, and begin working on
guidance for other states. In parallel with that last step
would be to begin updating the classification in the states
where guidance has been prepared.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The main thing to consider is the large group of silent mappers
who contribute but don't read this mailing list, and may or may
not look at the wiki occasionally. How will this guidance reach
everyone? Appropriate linkage from the main highway wiki pages
would be essential, as would cleaning up of existing confusing /
conflicting guidance on scattered wiki pages. A template to adopt
for state pages. Just some ideas.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMN3sBfgMhJ789aEpYhnifXMkmE4m3Ah2Oysg150MDqjKP3MUg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<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">
<div>
<p>Another thing that I am missing is attention to the
lower road classes. I have an accepted lightning talk at
State of the Map this summer that is entitled "Bye Bye
Unclassified"[0]. From that title, you should be able to
discern what that will be about :) I am on the fence
about including lower road classes in this discussion,
because the topic is already so broad and controversial.
On the other hand, now that we have everyone's eyes and
ears on this topic, it seems like a missed opportunity
to not also give some thought to those lower road
classes. Right now, there is just a short paragraph
about "Secondary and lower". I have some specific ideas
about simplifying that aspect of road classification,
and I can extend that section, if you want.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Secondary and lower classes (including unclassified) have
come up a lot in our discussions. I'm personally pretty
attached to using unclassified as "class-6 of 7 in
importance". ;-) I live in an area with many small and tiny
roads that provide [sometimes poor] interconnections between
larger roads but which are not part of any residential area
and may not have any abutters. I have lots of thoughts on
how to disambiguate between the lowest classes and have been
experimenting with the idea of evaluating the ratio of
traffic destined to a road's abutting properties versus
through traffic from elsewhere as a distinguishing metric:
For example (with a wild guess at ratios):<br>
</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>Less than 33% of traffic is to abutters (more than 67%
through traffic) ==> tertiary</li>
<li>33% to 67% of traffic is to abutters (close to equal
destination and through traffic) ==> unclassified</li>
<li>More than 67% of traffic is to abutters (less than 33%
through traffic) ==> residential</li>
</ul>
<div>All that said, while I'd love to dig into those lower
classifications more and have those discussions in full,
they don't have the same national and regional impact as
the classification of larger roads and I'd hate to get
sidetracked in a way that prevents consensus on the
motorway/trunk/primary levels. I feel that if we can get
those top levels sorted out then the lower levels will
begin to make a lot more sense.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I see your point and this confirms my gut feeling that we should
take this one step at a time. Perhaps a good way to start with the
lower road classes is to approach it bottom-up, like the way this
proposal came to life starting in the northeastern US. I'll reach
out to my fellow Utah mappers to test the waters. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMN3sBfgMhJ789aEpYhnifXMkmE4m3Ah2Oysg150MDqjKP3MUg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,<br>
</div>
<div>Adam<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Martijn<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>