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

[Jherome Miguel]

There's a reason why Route 117 is trunk, to indicate it’s a critical link
road (it's the Trans-Can and a NHS route) and to ensure network
connectivity (avoid change in classification because of build quality). And
there's already the expressway=yes tag to indicate better build (twinning,
some grade separations, design features to support high speed). The main
OSM render doesn't support that however, though US-centric renderers such
as OSM Americana already provide a render for such roads with the tag.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:02 PM Martin Chalifoux <
martin.chalifoux at icloud.com> wrote:

> I agree with john. I read the definition of a primary road, which is a
> “road that links regions or major agglomerations” and it is pretty much the
> same as the definition now given to trunk roads. I am all fine with keeping
> primary roads for such roads that link regions of a province, what we
>  normally call national roads. In Qc they are the 100 series. Those don’t
> need to be turned into trunk roads on that basis. The classic use of trunk
> for wider/busier/quasi-motorway segments has the benefit if providing that
> information. In quebec some primary roads like the 138 and 117 were already
> turned into trunk for all their length (and they are very long roads) and
> it really didn’t add any value to the map. It was a worthless change.
> Before their wider segments were highlighted as trunk while most of their
> length  was primary, and I prefer the old way. If it was just me I would
> put them back as primary except the sections where they are built bigger .
> On the other hand the 175 has been turned into trunk after being doubled
> and that is good use of trunk, showing a wider road that does not meet
> motorway standards. In the end ff the routing engine is too dumb to
> prioritize a primary road as much as it prioritize a trunk road, then it is
> the routing engine that needs some fixing. And in practice trunk and
> primary roads rarely compete for traffic, there is not so many of them and
> they don’t run side by side.
>
> Reading some of the discussion, I certainly see no consensus and in fact
> little support for the proposed changes. This should not be implemented in
> that context. I hope nobody is going ahead on this.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20220210/80d61aae/attachment.htm>