<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Guys,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Perhaps in certain cases the physical functionality
of the road may need to have higher priority than its network classification (as
in Nics' example). I think we all know of roads that are unclassified
or secondary etc. that seem to be "major" routes! This is possibly driven by the
changing demography in S.A.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But, again, this is interpretation... And this is
why we are always going to get people changing tags.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I, for one, am quite happy to tag the M39 as a
primary road - it is a main feeder from Kempton/Tembisa to the N1 after all -
and tag the M16 as a secondary road or even tertiary collector (using Pauls'
interpretation).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Unless something can be clearly defined, there will
be issues.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Paul has put forward a suggestion for
classification which does make sense. I think we need more input from the
regular "mappers" and users of maps.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Are we stirring up a hornet's nest?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=nroets@gmail.com href="mailto:nroets@gmail.com">Nic Roets</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=talk-za@openstreetmap.org
href="mailto:talk-za@openstreetmap.org">talk-za@openstreetmap.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, November 04, 2008 3:55
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSM-Talk-ZA] Tagging</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Hi Mark and Paul,<BR><BR>I guess our standards are a bit open
to interpretation, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It's relatively easy
to get it right. It does not work for Rossouw Street M13 which carries a lot
less traffic than Louis Botha M33. (And some idiot changed Hans Strydom in
Pretoria to residential a few weeks back !)<BR><BR>Paul, your system also
looks easy except distinguishing between secondary and tertiary.<BR><BR>I may
be responsible for tagging the R104 as tertiary so that it stands out a bit
better between the the M2, M4 etc. But if someone wants to change it (or and
other road), I'll stick to the new values.<BR><BR>The only thing that is
important to me is that most routing software currently assumes that 'trunk'
roads are faster than primary etc. And it's unclear if pedestrians and
bicycles are allowed on trunk roads, so explicit tagging is
best.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Paul van Helden <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:paul@planetgis.co.za">paul@planetgis.co.za</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">Hi
All,<BR><BR>I'm have a similar question to Mark's. The words "trunk",
"primary",<BR>"secondary" and "tertiary" implies a functional
classification. A<BR>functionally classified road network should have each
class<BR>(more-or-less) forming a closed network. The "motorway" class is
not a<BR>functional classification, but a physical classification. For me,
using<BR>the "motorway" class is acceptable because that is the way street
maps<BR>are typically made: showing dual carriageways as the top
class<BR>regardless of route designation or function. Anyway, only rarely in
the<BR>case of underutilized dual carriageway roads is that an
incorrect<BR>assumption.<BR><BR>Defining "trunk" as N roads is making it a
network classification. Since<BR>trunk roads are rendered in green and we
want to see the national<BR>network on the map, regardless of function, it
works.<BR><BR>We have (at least) 3 different ways of classifying roads and
these need<BR>to be blended into one classification. Our problem is also
that we have<BR>to use the existing classes and get the OSM map to look like
the street<BR>maps we are used to in SA. (In terms of colouring & the
scales at which<BR>they display).<BR><BR>The "tertiary" class is not
mentioned on the tagging standards page. Yet<BR>there are a lot of them,
many which (like trunk) "looks" right.<BR><BR>My suggestion is to define the
tag names as follows:<BR><BR>Any freeway = "motorway" (physical
classification)<BR>N roads (undivided) = "trunk" (network
classification)<BR>Major routes linking into freeways and N routes,
typically low numbered<BR>M & R = "primary" (main roads: combination
between functional and<BR>network classification)<BR>Important routes
linking into "primary" (main) roads (this sometimes<BR>will be a road
without a R designation) or routes linking up populated<BR>places =
"secondary" (network classification)<BR>Local collector roads, ie.
residential roads that carry through traffic<BR>(often residential roads
with sidewalks) = "tertiary" (functional<BR>classification)<BR>The rest =
either "residential" or "unclassified".<BR><BR>In terms of the correct
naming of the above (for legends on customized<BR>maps) I would go
for:<BR><BR>Freeways<BR>National roads<BR>Main roads<BR>Secondary
roads<BR>Collector roads<BR>Residential / other<BR><BR>My suggestion for
"tertiary" will invalidate many of the current<BR>"tertiary" roads - those
that are not residential and are connecting<BR>populated places. A good
example is the R104: Pretoria street connecting<BR>Bronkhorstspruit parallel
with the N4.<BR><A
href="http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-25.7542&lon=28.4227&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF"
target=_blank>http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-25.7542&lon=28.4227&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF</A><BR><BR>Comments?<BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Paul.<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Talk-ZA
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org">Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za"
target=_blank>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR>!DSPAM:40899,49105492100021795029775!
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Talk-ZA mailing
list<BR>Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org<BR>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za<BR><BR><BR>!DSPAM:40899,49105492100021795029775!<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>