[Tagging] [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> Being able to speak each country's highway lingua franca would make it a lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta Stone of maps simply from ease of classification.

That would mean using "jalan=provinsi" instead of "highway=primary" in
Indonesia, so any global map service (like opencyclemap.org) would
need to interpret all these tags from different languages. If you
limit this to just official languages there would be several hundred
to translate, but there are over 1500 languages with a written
language currently: I don't see why we would limit things to just
official languages.

The main feature tags are in British English and they should be
translated to the appropriate local context by local mappers in each
area, rather than creating new feature tags for every country and
language, so that global maps and routing applications can continue to
work.

It's also helpful that mappers in Germany and Japan can help map my
area here in Indonesia, adding rivers, lakes and roads based on aerial
imagery. They would have trouble if they needed to learn the hundreds
of local languages in each part of Indonesia to tag things properly.

-Joseph Eisenberg

On 12/21/19, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:07 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by baloo at ursamundi.org:
>>
>> So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary,
>> secondary, tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway,
>> major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems
>> with
>> Texas and Missouri and their extensive secondary systems),
>> major/minor_collector...the US just has a way more complex view of how
>> highways work.
>>
>> Or at least some more serious consideration given to the proposal at
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:UltimateRiff/HFCS (but perhaps
>> with "other principal arterials" as primary and a new
>> "highway=quartinary".
>>
>> Fitting thing like road classification
>> into UK system is irritating at times.
>>
>> But idea of each country with separate tags
>> for roads is simply a bad idea.
>>
>
> Could you expand on this?  Being able to speak each country's highway
> lingua franca would make it a lot easier for OSM to become the Rosetta
> Stone of maps simply from ease of classification.
>
>
>> This info is probably worth recording,
>> but legal status should go into a separate tag.
>>
>
> Legal status of roads in the US isn't quite as clearcut as it is in the UK,
> where the highway=* tag is literally equal to that country's legal
> classification, plus private roads with significant public passage and/or
> reach.  Off the top of my head we have 1 country, 2 states, 34 tribes, 77
> counties and 597 towns, plus MacQuarie Group Australia running the
> turnpikes and the Boy Scouts of America, Phillips 66, ConocoPhillips, or
> some combination of the three, and potentially scores more private
> entities, operating extensive networks of publicly accessible roads and
> highways in Oklahoma.  And I generally consider myself lucky I have it
> *this* straightforward in the US.
>
> Texas likely has similar situations but throw in the fact that they have 7
> different state highway systems before you get into at least 3 more
> (regional? state? private? unclear...) competing turnpike networks,
> sometimes running side by side on the same right of way (consider TX 121
> with the George Bush Turnpike operated by the North Texas Transportation
> Agency running down the median).
>
> Simply starting with the HFCS and expanding from that (particularly on the
> freeway/expressway distinction, and having more levels between secondary
> and unclassified) would be a fantastic boon to dealing with this mess in a
> more concise fashion as it changes highway=* tagging from almost entirely
> subjective to subjective but within a limited range.  Establish wiki pages
> describing how each region works and let the consumers sort it out from
> there.
>
> At an absolute minimum, we really need to establish values lower than
> tertiary yet above unclassified, and we definitely do need to make the
> freeway/expressway distinction.
>