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

[Andrew Lester]

Firstly, I'm another mapper from out west, being based in Victoria. I don't think there's any issue with this mailing list. It's only natural that there will be more members from Ontario based on population. Historically, it also seems like Ontario has a lot of grey areas and edge-cases, so any kind of standardized plan inevitably runs into conflicts there and leads to more discussion. 

On the matter at hand, I don't think we need to make wide-scale changes, but there's room for improvement. 

Forcing classifications based solely on their connectivity between population centres certainly won't work. The construction is just as much a factor in determining the classification. Belleville Street in downtown Victoria is officially part of BC 17 linking to a ferry to the US, but I personally think it's already too high at primary (especially between Menzies and the ferry terminal). Upgrading it even further to trunk would be absurd. 

I think it might be time to break the link between NHS and trunk, because forcing that link leads to some clear misclassifications. One example that was provided is the portion of BC 99 from Whistler to Lillooet. Even though it's designated as part of the NHS, trunk is far too high of a classification for much of it. Looking specifically at the Duffey Lake Road portion from Pemberton to Lillooet, even the current primary classification based on it being a numbered highway is probably generous. It's a 60 km/h, winding, two-lane road that's seldom-traveled and often considered a dangerous route. Heck, it has its own page on the website [ https://www.dangerousroads.org/north-america/canada/10859-duffey-lake-road,-a-great-summer-drive-in-bc.html | dangerousroads.org ] ! Trunk would mislead users as to both the importance and construction of this road in the BC highway network. Conversely, there are roads that aren't part of the NHS, but for which a case could be made that trunk would be the most appropriate tag. For example, I hadn't considered it before, but it might indeed make sense for Saanich Road between BC 1 and BC 17 to be trunk, based both on its construction and connective importance. 

Kudos to Jherome for trying to tackle such a task and putting so much effort into the wiki pages, though I think it might be putting the cart before the horse. While it seems like there's some support for parts of the proposal, it doesn't seem like there's widespread support for the overall plan. I think it would be better to identify what issues there are that contributors generally agree could be improved, and then focus on dealing with those. That could grow into a provincial or national highway reclassification plan, or it could end up being just some tweaking of a few areas. 

Andrew 
Victoria, BC 


From: "Jherome Miguel" <jheromemiguel at gmail.com> 
To: "talk-ca" <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> 
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 2:06:07 PM 
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Proposed changes to road classification and related stuff 

It's not just about keeping up with changes in the border, but I find there need to a lot more trunk routes so to highlight other important road links between important regional population centres (in here as well as in the US), not just ones defined by a committee of provincial and territorial transportation ministers. Yes, a trunk network based on the NHS core network may be okay and is mostly well-connected so to say the least, and we can leave that as it is, but we should try to highlight other key connections (e.g. Barrie/Toronto/Kitchener-Waterloo/London–Owen Sound, Red Deer–Saskatoon, Medicine Hat-Lloydminster, Rouyn-Noranda–Saguenay without passing through the St. Lawrence valley, North Battleford-Prince Albert, Prince Albert-Yorkton without passing through Saskatoon), and relying solely on a highway being a NHS core route can reveal connectivity gaps, especially when viewing the map at lower zooms. Connectivity is an current issue as with BC 99 (Sea to Sky Highway), which ends at Whistler rather than continuing up to the Cariboo; the BC 99 trunk status being based on where it's an NHS route. 

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 10:22 AM Iain Ingram < [ mailto:iain at monkeyface.ca | iain at monkeyface.ca ] > wrote: 



I certainly wouldn’t say this mail list doesn’t have mappers from the west on it. I am also in Alberta. I would have to agree with Martin. What is broken and what is the benefit of this fix? I am not suggesting it is not valid but I am curious what brought this up as a need. 

Iain 


BQ_BEGIN
On Feb 10, 2022, at 07:42, Martin Chalifoux via Talk-ca < [ mailto:talk-ca at openstreetmap.org | talk-ca at openstreetmap.org ] > wrote: 





BQ_BEGIN

On this statement below, I will ask again, what is it that is broken ? What is it that needs fixing ? It may be obvious to you that it needs fixing but for many experienced mappers the trunk tag is just fine and there is nothing wrong with it. So in a sentence or two, not a one pager, can you explain what is it that needs fixing. That they have done something in the USA is not the answer. Thank you. 

BQ_END


BQ_BEGIN




BQ_BEGIN

On Feb 10, 2022, at 09:21, Jherome Miguel < [ mailto:jheromemiguel at gmail.com | jheromemiguel at gmail.com ] > wrote: 

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? 


BQ_END


_______________________________________________ 
Talk-ca mailing list 
[ mailto:Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org | Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org ] 
[ https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca | https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca ] 

BQ_END


BQ_END


_______________________________________________ 
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/20220210/0e129d5b/attachment-0001.htm>