[talk-au] (LONG) Adelaide Highway Classification (was: Highway Classification Issues)

[Stuart Robinson]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Darrin Smith <beldin at beldin.org> wrote:

> Wups, sent the previous email just to Stuart not the list, got to watch
> out for these people who CC lists...
>
>  On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:37:46 +1100
> "Stuart Robinson" <brainwad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think you are far too eager to mark every other highway as trunk.
> > Sydney also seems dilapidated of trunks cause the motorways have
> > superseded a lot of arterial metroads along their routes.
>
> I implicitly was counting them as turnk routes, Melbourne still creams
> Sydney for trunk density.
>
> > Looking at Adelaide, certainly A22 is *not* a trunk route, it should
> > primary. Trunk routes should be in the order of 50km or longer (all
> > but one Sydney metroad is, and that one is because it goes north and
> > the city just runs out of space). The A13 should not be trunk,
> > because it seems to me that the (NH)A20 is the main route north east,
> > and the A13 just parallels it. Same with Lower North East Road and
> > North East Road. The one that is the main road out to that area
> > should be trunk, the other should be primary. The A15 looks like it
> > just parallels South Road too, but I can at least see an argument for
> > that one. Also: is Main North Road or NHA17 the more used northern
> > route? Because whichever is the more long-distance route (I'm
> > thinking/hoping this is the NH) should be the trunk, and the other
> > should be primary.
>
> Simply shot down in Sydney by M3 and M6 which are closer than some of
> the roads you are talking about and cover nearly identical tasks
> (middle ring route). So will you be removing one of them? No, because
> they are Metroads, because a non-job-specific definition is labelling
> those as the routes. The A13 pulls traffic from the NHA20 to a
> completely different part of the city to the road itself, as do the M3
> and M6 when you look at them in detail.


I don't agree with metroad 6 personally... but the reason for them is that
it is allegedly a through route from wollongong to newcastle, whereas
metroad 3 is a ring road around sydney from the southern suburbs to the
northern beaches. the signed focal points of the routes are different to
reflect this.


> (As I've said in an earlier post I'm quite happy about rejecting the
> A22 if we decide to reject any, this issue is whether we apply a simple
> consitent definition or base our decision on whatever mood someone is
> in because of what they are for breakfast that morning?)
>
> We are trying to work out a similar thing in Adelaide. As soon as you
> don't have a definite thing you start getting arbritary definitions
> like "50km in length"  why not "60km in length" oh, that would drop
> another 3 of yours off the list and it wouldn't be some comprehensive.
> What makes 50km special?


nothing, provided the route is genuinely a long-haul route and not just
serving local traffic. its just a highway of 10 or 20 km is unlikely to be a
long-haul route.

>
>
> > So in conclusion, trunks are through routes, primaries are major
> > highways. through routes aren't necessarily of high standard (think
> > two lane rural highways, like the northern road in Sydney), and high
> > standard highways aren't necessarily through routes (though they
> > might have used to have been, i.e. no one would seriously use the
> > Hume highway between Sydney and Casula any more, they'd use the m5,
> > even though some sections of the hume highway are quite good
> > standard, the road is now only for local traffic, not through traffic
> > between Sydney and Melbourne).
>
> That works raelly well in sydney where the entire basin has only a
> limited number of entry points (6 by my count).
> In real cities that contact the entire countryside around them there
> are numerous through routes running out of the city that are over 50km
> long and no-one would concieve of making them trunks.


thats debatable: port wakefield road to port augusta, main north road to
sydney,  ne road to ne,  glen osmond road to melbourne,  south road  to
south, anzac hwy to sw, port road to port adelaide. there you go, that's
your radial trunk roads. google classifies those as its "major highways", so
it doesn't seem unreasonable.

>
>
> Using Sydney as a typical example for this doesn't cut it, Melbourne
> matches a lot closer and it has a density of trunk routes similar to
> Adelaide.


Except that the definitions on the roads tagging page was originally written
for Sydney, and so its the archetypal example of how to apply them.

stuart.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20080311/64ffeff1/attachment.html>