[Talk-ca] Proposed changes to road classification and related stuff

[john whelan]

Isn't it a bit extreme to say this mailing list is no longer viable because
you aren't seeing complete support for your proposal?

I don't think you have consensus and you are trying to push something
through.

I seem to recall that Toronto, Montreal, have the largest populations and
they are in the east so it isn't surprising to me that there are more
mappers in the east.  That doesn't mean they should be ignored.

Cheerio John

On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 at 09:25, Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> You might be missing out the process, which is much like with the thing
> south of the border (start draft guidelines on wiki, discuss and gather
> feedback, complete documentation, do the changes). I create a draft, and I
> bring it forward here for comments, then I’ll update the draft to reflect
> your feedback and the consensus. I do feel this mailing list is no longer
> being viable, add to that most in here being most mappers registered here
> in this mailing list are from the east (I’m from the west), but I’ll not
> stop here. (Maybe continue this on Slack?)
>
>
>
> For the proposal of using primary for important former provincial
> highways, I agree there should be a standard. The GTA can be treated as a
> special area with the many cities, plus the many 400-series highways. Also
> primary (or even trunk) status shouldn’t end where it’s no longer
> provincially maintained; there used to be one guy who demoted provincial
> highways when it’s a Connecting Link or where it’s no longer a provincial
> highway, most of which I dealt with already, but still remains in some
> places like Cambridge (primary designation ends around current extent of
> development; should continue up to the 401)
>
>
>
> On the trunk==expressway thing, I’ll still be willing on dealing with
> those. People south of the border are already dealing with it, and why not
> us which still do have a bunch?
>
>
>
> On trunk again, I’ll still be willing to take on adding a bunch especially
> in the Prairies. NHS status may be one criteria, but there’s no need for a
> route to be part of NHS to get the trunk tag as long it connects identified
> major population centres (though the route to promote may still be subject
> to other factors). Also relying on NHS status for trunk classification may
> reveal network connectivity gaps; for example, BC 99 trunk status ends at
> Whistler, where it should be continued up to the Cariboo, because that’s
> what’s the NHS. Also note the changes being done south of the border, and
> we would like to maintain network continuity across the border.
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for
> Windows
>
>
>
> *From: *Pierre Béland <pierzenh at yahoo.fr>
> *Sent: *Thursday, 10 February 2022 6:10 am
> *To: *Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>; Kevin Farrugia
> <kevinfarrugia at gmail.com>
> *Cc: *Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Proposed changes to road classification and
> related stuff
>
>
>
> Jherome
>
>
>
> La pratique dans la communauté OSM est de rechercher un consensus de la
> communauté locale avant de modifier et la page wiki et la base de donnée.
> Il me semble clair après les commentaires de contributeurs de plusieurs
> provinces que nous préférons conserver la classification actuelle.
>
>
>
>
>  *Pierre *
>
>
>
>
>
> Le jeudi 10 février 2022, 08 h 04 min 47 s UTC−5, Kevin Farrugia <
> kevinfarrugia at gmail.com> a écrit :
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd be weary of mass changing classification of former provincial highways
> to primary in the Golden Horseshoe - the provincial highways were
> downloaded because they weren't seen as important to provincial movement,
> having been superceded by 1 or more 400-Series highway.
>
>
>
> In some cases, like former highway 7 in Brampton (Queen St E + Bovaird Dr
> W) it makes sense because those roads see 50000 vehicles/day and millions
> of $ in freight daily. But the original Hwy 7 from the 1800s (as shown in
> Google Maps) that extends to Hwy 10/Main St/Hurontario makes zero sense.
>
>
>
> I'd set some standards and allow local mappers to change it, especially in
> active areas of the province, otherwise we're going to get low volume local
> roads being converted for the sole reason for being a former highway and
> not because of its importance in vehicle movement. They may be important
> roads in the psyche or development of a city (Yonge St) but not all that
> important in movement of goods/people on the road (Yonge St downtown, which
> has been superceded by the subway).
>
>
>
> -Kevin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220210/c615a4ea/attachment-0001.htm>