[Talk-ca] Highway recoding

Sun Jul 26 21:29:22 UTC 2015

I'd actually make 138 a trunk right to Sept-Îles.  It's the only highway connecting the Côte-Nord and Labrador to the rest of North America.  Even though there aren't any big cities up there, it's a perfect example of a Type 2 trunk road, used by people travelling very long distances and a lot of long-haul trucking.  I've only personally driven it as far as Baie-Saint-Paul, but it even seems designed for long-distance travel, with frequent passing lanes and gradual curves.

I do see your concerns with this, Daniel.  I don't really want "the British situation" either.  But as long as we limit these Type 2 trunk roads to the TCH, like you said, plus just a few additional roads, such as 138, we'll be ok.  I don't want us to be like Brazil, either, which has almost no trunk roads, and where you have to zoom in quite far to see the main highways going across the country.

The only downside of this is that it becomes a green road on a green background.  I think it's stupid that they chose green for what are supposed to be the most important highways.  But I digress, this is not the place to be venting my frustrations about Mapnik.

> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> From: steggink at steggink.org
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 19:41:40 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Highway recoding
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20150726/f21ce136/attachment.html>