[Talk-ca] Proposed changes to road classification and related stuff
John Whelan
jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 2 22:35:29 UTC 2022
Je suis aussi d’accord avec Pierre.
John
Pierre Béland via Talk-ca wrote on 2/2/2022 5:02 PM:
> Longue discussion, un peu difficile à suivre.
>
> Je ne vois pas ce qu'il y a à modifier dans la classification actuelle
> des routes, a tout le moins pour le Québec dont je connais mieux la
> réalité que pour les autres provinces. Le réseau routier principal
> est bien documenté par le Ministère des transports du Québec et nous
> utilisons ces références.
>
> Une seule amélioration possible au Québec serait pour les routes
> forestières qui relèvent du Ministère des terres et forêts et dont la
> classification n'est pas aussi bien documentée que pour les routes
> relevant du ministère des transports. Ces routes sont financées,
> construites et entretenues par l'industrie forestière Ces longues
> routes forestière peuvent s'étendre sur des centaines de km et sont
> fréquentées par des véhicules lourds dont des véhicules hors norme ont
> généralement la priorité sur les autres usagers et on doit normalement
> posseder un radio walky-talky pour informer de sa présence et
> connaitre les déplacements des poids lourds. Les conditions hivernales
> peuvent aussi être très variables et certaines routes fermées à
> l'hiver ou après la fin d'exploitation d'un secteur particulier. Les
> touristes, chasseurs et amateurs de pêche qui s'aventurent sur ces
> routes auraient avantage à en connaitre les conditions et pièges
> spécifiques.
>
> Lorsque je documente les segments princiapaux de ces routes, j'utilise
> la référence R0XXX telle qu'elle apparait sur les couches routières du
> Gouvernement du Québec. J'ajoute aussi l'attribut priority
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/FR:Key:priority?uselang=fr> =
> overweight_truck
> exemple R0400 https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6602953
>
> Il est déjà possible de faire coexister des nos. de référence des
> routes par province avec des références interprovinciales en utilisant
> une relation route pour les réseaux interprovinciaux.
>
> Pour ce qui est de discuter de la couleur et de la forme des panneaux
> dans le rendu des cartes, cela se rapporte bien évidemment aux styles
> de cartes et n'a rien à voir avec le contenu de la base OSM.
>
> Pierre
>
>
> Le mercredi 2 février 2022, 16 h 13 min 48 s UTC−5, Jherome Miguel
> <jheromemiguel at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
> I just had a look of the GTA at Magic Earth, but the case there is
> that county/regional roads that were former provincial highways and
> tagged primary use provincial highway shields. Also another thing is a
> circle is used for regional/county roads and secondary highways. This
> is the case for Magic Earth, but what about other renderers? Magic
> Earth does seems to use a single rendering scheme across Canada that
> correlates with the underlying OSM classification: shield for
> motorway, trunk, and primary, and slightly squared-off oblong for
> secondary. If we should keep using numbers only for ref=*, maybe ask
> them to improve their render, considering different sign shapes are
> used across different provinces and the route relation should dictate
> the sign shape. Most province use a shield for top-level provincial
> highways (or all highways if there isn't a lower-level network like
> Alberta 501-986 highways, Manitoba provincial roads and Ontario
> secondary highways), though others would have it in a different colour
> (Saskatchewan shields are blue, Quebec green for ordinary provincial
> highways and red-and-blue Interstate-like style for the autoroutes).
> An exception exists for Nova Scotia as route numbers there use the "NS
> [number scheme]", which follows the American way; Magic Earth doesn't
> render them (so are US state route numbers), but I can point to them
> how those should be rendered.
>
> By the way, for me, I would insist on adding a prefix (as in the
> American way) as it will better deal with exceptional cases such as
> those downloaded provincial highways now marked as county/regional
> roads, and the proposed reclassifications push for it as it will
> uncouple (albeit partially) official classification from the OSM
> classification. That still would need an improvement to renderers
> though as an adaptation. Also something to address is numbered routes
> posted in TCH shields (use same scheme as regular provincial highways
> of [postal abbrev] [number] or use TCH [number]).
>
> Any other renderers that does Canadian highway numbers well aside from
> the US-centric OSM render?
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 6:33 AM Kevin Farrugia <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com
> <mailto:kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The relations should define the shield (network=*), not a prefix
> on the ref. I think most of Ontario's highways and all of the
> province's freeways have the network tags present.
>
> Former provincial highways in Ontario shouldn't be an issue
> because they've been tagged with their post-download numbers and
> relevant network=* value. The mass downloading of highways
> happened 6 years before OSM started, so they've always been under
> this classification. Also highways doesn't necessarily mean
> freeways (400-Series) - some of these highways were 2 lane country
> roads at the time that could now be maintained by the growing
> suburban population and were no longer as relevant with the
> expansion of the 400-Series system.
>
> A Canadian-specific specification would be nice to have defined.
> We've just sort of gone with the flow and kind of adjusted the
> American system and province-to-province differences always
> confuses discussions.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2022 at 23:59, Jherome Miguel
> <jheromemiguel at gmail.com <mailto:jheromemiguel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Magic Earth, the case is the shield rendered seem to depend
> on the underlying classification (other renderers too?). So in
> the case of some primaries in the GTA that are former
> provincial highways, not adding a suffix such as CR or RR to
> distinguish it from provincial highways (this being the likes
> of the 401, the 407 and the other 400-series highways) would
> result in a provincial highway shield being rendered instead
> of a regional or county road shield. Maybe also a
> consideration for provincial highways that use TCH sign except
> in Ontario and Quebec.
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 9:40 PM Brian M. Sperlongano
> <zelonewolf at gmail.com <mailto:zelonewolf at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2022 at 11:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski
> <jarek at piorkowski.ca <mailto:jarek at piorkowski.ca>> wrote:
>
> Many renderers use the underlying classification to
> determine what shield will be used
>
>
> Down here south of the border, we recently launched the
> openstreetmap-americana project, and we're the first open
> source map that has highway shields with full concurrency
> support on vector tiles. We do not use the highway
> classification to determine which shield is used. We
> derive this information entirely from the list of road
> route relations that a way is a member of, as well as the
> network and ref tag on that route relation. We ignore the
> ref tag on ways entirely for the purpose of generating
> shields.
>
> (no, we haven't implemented Canada highway shields yet.
> Yes, we want to)
>
> [1] https://zelonewolf.github.io/openstreetmap-americana
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--
Sent from Postbox <https://www.postbox-inc.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20220202/0e5942b0/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Talk-ca
mailing list