[Talk-lt] secondary/tertiary in proposed definitions at WikiProject Lithuania

Tue Jun 7 16:31:51 UTC 2022

7 cze 2022, 17:55 od a.kasparas at gmc.lt:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 15:58 +0200, Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-lt wrote:
>
>>> Second, every year some country roads are paved. This is done taking into account importance of the stretch of the road (plus, if it goes over some village). So, important stretches gets paved and upgraded in the OSM database. If more gaps are left, then the whole road is less important in country's or wider context. So state of map reflects state on the ground. In our book this is how things should be.
>>>
>> Also when it results in a short strips of higway=tertiary upgraded to highway=secondary
>> because section of say 30m or 100m or 300m was paved?
>>
>
> If this reflects reality, I see no problem (with one exception).
> In practice, shortest stretch will be as long as "habitable" part of village.
> Exception being for the case when there is some paved part just before intersection. LT law says it does not change right of the way rules. So, if you see stretch of less than ~5 meters upgraded to secondary just before intersection, I will agree this is mistake. I also will not have a good suggestion how this should be micromapped. 
> For the reference, part 3.14 of KET „> Šalutiniame kelyje prieš pat sankryžą esantis ruožas su kietąja ar biriąja danga nedaro jo lygiareikšmio su kertamuoju ar prisijungiančiuoju keliu.“
>
>
>> As far as I know, this is really unusual and goes against how highway=.../primary/secondary/
>> teriary/... is in general mapped or should be mapped.
>>
>
> How things are generally mapped and how they should be mapped are a little bit different things. Not tooooo long ago it was usual to drive horse carriage. Not any more. At least in our part of the world. Not too long ago one had to go to big guys if he wanted a decent map. Not any more. At least in our part of the world.
> When I see other people do things differently, I usually ask why they do it their way, what good they achieve in choosing their way, what problems they have and only then I ask have they considered the way I'm doing this thing. I often learn lots of interesting things. Sometimes I learn that I always did something wrong.
>
Still, I think that redefining "this shows overall role/importance of road" to
"secondary/tertiary is not for road importance it is for road quality and for
marking is specific rule applying" is not helpful.

>
>
>>> Third, there are different legal requirements while driving on paved roads and on unpaved roads -- 90 vs 70 km/h max speed, right of the way for driving on first vs second.
>>>
>> this, as far as I know, can be easily achieved by tagging and using surface=* tags
>> (some places have different legal rules on lit/unlit single/double carriageways,
>> inside/outside settled areas and so on and trying to fit it into highway=* classes is rarely
>> the best idea)
>>
>
> Yes, we know about surface, max_speed ant other tags. We encourage to use them. But their use is orthogonal to selection of highway= tag.
>
Except highway=tertiary/secondary in Lithuania where surface tagging hijacks also
 highway=* classification.

And some other places, for example Poland has in turn
"residential unpaved road marked as  highway=track" problem, but we are cleaning this up.

>
>
>>> Forth, in all practical applications we could come up at the time of the decision we expected that one will work with set where all or none of secondary and tertiary will be included. So, we considered this to be safe.
>>>
>> sorry, I do not really understand this part.
>>
>
> Ok, give me a second chance to explain.
> Here, in LT mapping community, we often ask how the results of our mapping activity will be used. Mapping for the sake of mapping? Maybe important for someone, not very much for community. Sorry.
> What was important for most -- make navigation practical. Car, bicycle, kayak. Done, AFAIK. At least first two.
> Printed maps -- there are numerous posted in parks, used in leaflets, etc. Done.
> Used as a background for maps on websites of all the kinds. Done.
> Then some personal and not so personal experiments.
>
> Take navigation. When you search a way from Lisbon to Vladivostok, you will not use roads marked as secondary or tertiary in LT. When you search for way between two PoIs in the same/neighboring districts in LT -- you'll consider both--secondary and tertiary--and even unclassified.
> Take printed maps. If you print whole Europe, you'll not show secondaries in LT, tertiaries too. When you print map of national park, you'll select both and even paths.
>
> So, at the moment of writing these rules we sat down and tough about problems. We found none. At least unsolvable.
>
> What we gained in choosing to distinguish paved roads and unpaved ones is they are clearly marked on the maps. When I select in the OsmAnd that I want to avoid unpaved road, it will look for surface tags and will do a good job. But, I value an option to visually see how much "zebra" (of secondary and tertiary roads) is the alternative, which was avoided.
>
> Yes, it's a sin of mapping for presentation. We knew this when we decided. We limited this sin just for this case. And we're not ready to live without it.
>
> How this affects people outside LT? In our opinion, minimally. Secondary and tertiary are neighboring categories (we do not map paths as autostradas). Their limits are somehow overlapping in both OSM and legal use. People crossing LT fast have better alternatives and should not use them. People crossing LT slowly or who need to reach some odd place... most likely survive our weird way of mapping country roads. So, is there a reason to force a change?
>
While for routing it is unlikely to matter, it is going to be irritating for example for
people making maps intended to look well or showing road networks etc.

But mostly for consistency - similarly deciding to ban use of highway=motorway and
instead of mapping highway=trunk motorway=yes would not lead to some tragic 
effects but would be quite weird and overall unlikely to be a good idea.

This kind of fragmentation is unavoidable in some ways, but ideally would be 
limited and not increased step by step and ending with ornate rules for
each country which actively contradict wider standards.
And not supported by local rules.

In this case mismapping for renderer is also not some utterly 2000% 
wrong idea like https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Ankara_3D.png [1]
but ideally would not be done.

At this point I probably communicated what was more-or-less useful.

As I am unlikely to provide anything new and useful and I am not part of
local community so I think that I should leave this discussion.

Hopefully this feedback was at least sorf-of-useful.

I would just propose considering unifying classification at least for extremely
tiny sections (<100m?) where displaying something as paved is unlikely
to matter much and such isolated highway=secondary is quite silly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-lt/attachments/20220607/142902c9/attachment.htm>