[Talk-ca] Highway recoding

Sat Jul 25 17:41:40 UTC 2015

Hi Daniel,

Actually, the part between Quebec City and Beaupré of Route 138 should 
still be tagged as a trunk. Beaupré is not a large population centre, 
but the layout of the road is almost that of a motorway. Except that 
there are traffic lights instead of interchanges.

Regards,

Frank

On 25-7-2015 19:10, Daniel Begin wrote:
>
> I think we are evolving to a consensus that makes sense.
>
> I have received some examples that are quite right in QC context. For 
> those who know the area, Route 175 up to Saguenay is obviously a “type 
> 1” trunk road while Route 138 northeast from Quebec City isn't.
>
> However, I hope everyone concerned will give their “two cents” because 
> the context in Manitoba or in Yukon may be (is) quite different, and I 
> do not want an "Eastern centric solution" on the subject :-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> DanielI
>
> *From:*Daniel Begin [mailto:jfd553 at hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* July-24-15 10:09
> *To:* 'Adam Martin'; 'Tristan Anderson'
> *Cc:* talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
>
> “… [TCH] is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at its most 
> basic point, the central connection between major settlements …”
>
> Interesting… it is type 2 definition proposed by Tristan but without 
> the concept of distance. IMHO, It highlights the fact that, depending 
> on how you define central connection, major settlements, or distant 
> population centres, you may ends up with the Britain situation – or 
> even worst.
>
> Combining two very different objectives (types 1 and 2) in one 
> definition leads to confusion. What about a rationale revolving around 
> Type 1 definition but considering the TCH as a “special case” as 
> suggested by Martin?
>
> -OSM road classes mostly aim toward Type 1 definition, so be it for 
> trunks;
>
> -Since TCH could be consider as the only highway connecting most major 
> population centres across the country, we could agree to tag it 
> whether motorway or trunk depending on the infrastructure. There 
> should then be no more confusion with this only one exception.
>
> However, we could also manage all type 2 definitions, such as the ones 
> described in document (a) with relation:route (b) but it is a bit more 
> complex and less visual when looking at Mapnik.
>
> Other thoughts, comments?
>
> Daniel
>
> a) http://www.comt.ca/english/NHS-report-english.pdf
>
> b) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:route#Road_routes
>
> *From:*Adam Martin [mailto:s.adam.martin at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* July-24-15 07:08
> *To:* Tristan Anderson
> *Cc:* Daniel Begin; Stewart C. Russell; talk-ca at openstreetmap.org 
> <mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
>
> Reviewing the types that you suggest here, the result seems 
> reasonable. Major Canadian Highways are generally a blend of the two, 
> I find. Type 1 trunks rely on restricted access and the main highways 
> in cities are generally limited in this manner. Likewise, these 
> restrictions lift, in a sense, outside the city where they switch to 
> connecting major settlements together (Type 2).
>
> That said, I think that most would agree that the TransCanada Highway 
> is automatically a trunk route given that it is, at it's most basic 
> point, the central connection between major settlements, especially 
> across provincial borders. I assume that the routes that leave the TCH 
> to go to other major settlements would need to be at the same class as 
> the TCH, if they are multi-lane highways used to connect settlements. 
> Or are we to designate them down a classification and leave Trunk for 
> the TCH alone?
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Tristan Anderson 
> <andersontristan at hotmail.com <mailto:andersontristan at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> So it seems like we're coming to some agreement.  The current Canadian 
> definition based on that 2005 document should be replaced with 
> something else that is consistent with the rest of the world.  Once we 
> find this new definition, the appropriate wiki pages should be updated.
>
> I took a look around the world and finally saw some consistency in how 
> trunk tags are used.  Stewart's guidelines are basically correct, but 
> I think I can hammer out a more specific description.  There are two 
> types of roads with are both usually tagged highway=trunk:
>
>
> (1) Limited access highways.  This is a physical description for a 
> road that has some of the characteristics of a motorway.  They are 
> often dual carriageways of fairly high speed.
>
> (2) Highways connecting distant population centres.  This is a 
> functional description for a road where used by cars and heavy trucks 
> travelling long distances or between major cities.  Although usually 
> two lanes, in more remote areas these roads may have very light 
> traffic, be unpaved, or be slow.
>
> In some parts of the world, like Germany, France and the eastern 
> United States, all trunk roads are type (1) because long-distance 
> travel is generally done on their dense networks of motorways.
>
> Conversely, in large swathes of Australia and Canada, as well as in 
> much of the developing world, all trunk roads are type (2) because 
> type (1) doesn't exist.
>
> The only country I noticed that doesn't follow the above scheme is 
> Britain (actually just England and Wales), ironically the birthplace 
> of the trunk. The designation there is used quite liberally, including 
> even short roads connecting small towns and quite a few of of London's 
> city streets.  Just look at England at zoom level 5 and observe how 
> unusually green it is.
>
> I suggest using the "international" model, with types (1) and (2) 
> above being tagged as trunks in Canada.  This won't change much as it 
> largely coincides with how roads are already tagged.  The wiki pages 
> can be updated accordingly then we can look at specific roads in BC 
> and Québec!
>
> Any objections?
>
> > From: jfd553 at hotmail.com <mailto:jfd553 at hotmail.com>
> > To: scruss at gmail.com <mailto:scruss at gmail.com>; 
> talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> > Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:08:44 -0400
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
> >
> > Thank Russel,
> > Your description is pretty close of the one I had in mind (about 
> trunks) before I found the Canadian definition was referring to the 
> mentioned document.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:scruss at gmail.com 
> <mailto:scruss at gmail.com>]
> > Sent: July-23-15 08:44
> > To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
> >
> > The definition of ‘trunk’ is a difficult one, if based on the UK 
> understanding. Like its unwritten constitution, trunk roads in the UK 
> are more on a "know it when I see it" basis.
> >
> > Pretty much the only definitions I can think of that would be 
> generally applicable are:
> >
> > * a trunk road goes from one city/town to another.
> >
> > * no parking at the side of the road.
> >
> > * something above the urban speed limit applies (though there are 
> often nasty brief exceptions, like a roughly 200m stretch of 30 mph 
> that used to adorn the A80, dammit).
> >
> > A trunk road isn't always dual carriageway. It can have traffic 
> lights, roundabouts or (rare, in the UK) stop signs. Depending on its 
> age, it may bypass towns and villages. Older trunk roads may also have 
> all the usual roads entering it, while newer ones are likely to have 
> on-ramps.
> >
> > In summary, the UK definition is so riddled with unwritten 
> exceptions that trying to apply it rigorously in even one province in 
> Canada will be frustrating. And no matter what you do, you'll always 
> get some rogue user that comes along and adds their own tagging. It's 
> a sair fecht …
> >
> > cheers,
> > Stewart
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca