[OSM-np] Classification of Roads in Nepal

Sakar Pudasaini sakar at galligalli.org
Mon Jul 2 07:57:29 BST 2012


Yeah. Super west centric... think I've seen a total of 1 road sign in the
last month. Also the idea of a cycle path, so designated by law is pretty
much laughable. I have not tried it but I imagine I could take a damn horse
anywhere I really pleased... ride it all the way to china down the highway
:-)

May I make a suggestion. How about we flip the script and first try to
agree on the types of roads we think exist in Nepal, then decide what is
the appropriate tagging for it. It maybe that two of our types go into the
same tag, or it may be that a tag that exists is irrelevant for Nepal etc.
Also I agree with Prabhas' assessment but I do think we should try to norm
within at least the rest of the subcontinent, don't imagine their
situations is that different from ours. And norms are nice when they can
be established.

Here is my attempt at a few, this is going to be Kathmandu-centric since I
have not had a chance to explore outside the valley for a while:

1. Type A: Roads that connect major cities and designed to lead traffic out
of, into or around a town. These streets are relative broad and though they
maybe potholed occasionally, regular resources are committed to keep them
in good shape. E.g. Arniko highway, ring road

2. Type B: Roads with in the city that deal with (or are capable of dealing
with) significant volumes of traffic. These roads are designed for motor
vehicles AND regular resources are committed to their upkeep. I'm thinking
Ram Shah Path, the gausala road running from Chabil Chowk to Baneshwor
Chowk, Pasupati Sadak (running from Kamalpokhari towards the airport)

3. Type C: Roads with in the city that are designed for Motor Vehicles BUT
do not see regular upkeep. There are side streets that accommodate 2 way
traffic and might have been pitched at some point but now are maybe half
pitched at the best. These often tend to be connectors between two Type B
roads.

4. Type D: Unpaved roads intended for cars.

5. Type E: unpaved or paved galli's that will not fit cars but motorcycles
and cycles can go through them

6. Type F: roads in heavily populated areas that could fit cars but where
street vendors and pedestrians hold sway e.g. Ason. This is the
"living_street" I think.

I struggled with B and C. They could very well be the same thing, but as
someone who rides a motorbike around town they feel very different.

-Sakar

On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Prabhas Pokharel <prabhas.pokharel at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hmm, not sure that I have more clarity in my head of how to tag things
> now. There are also highway=service and highway=path that we could pair
> with motorcycle=yes.
>
> In general, I think the rules that are built are very western centric, as
> you can see in the images in the path controversy (
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy). So the guidelines
> we build for ourselves should be a result of creative interpretation of
> norms in place in other places of the world rather than trying to find the
> exact meaning based on pictures that one is very unlikely to see in Nepal.
>
> --p
>
>
> On Saturday, June 30, 2012, bibekshrestha at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> For living_street vs residential road, the first paragraph here
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential kind of
>> explains the difference. Atleast the image on the right side does not look
>> like a living_street.
>> --
>> Bibek Shrestha
>> bibekshrestha at gmail dot com
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bibstha
>> "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.", Eames to
>> Arthur, Inception 2010
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 4:55 PM, bibekshrestha at gmail.com <
>> bibekshrestha at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The following references try to clarify the confusion, but only to some
>> extent.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dpedestrian#footway_vs_pedestrian
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
>>
>> --
>> Bibek Shrestha
>> bibekshrestha at gmail dot com
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bibstha
>> "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.", Eames to
>> Arthur, Inception 2010
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 4:54 PM, bibekshrestha at gmail.com <
>> bibekshrestha at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bibek Shrestha
>> bibekshrestha at gmail dot com
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/bibstha
>> "You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.", Eames to
>> Arthur, Inception 2010
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Prabhas Pokharel <
>> prabhas.pokharel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bibek, thanks for making a first draft of this important document. One
>> minor suggestion: should we think of something that is very similar to
>> highway=pedestrian, but streets that are accessible to motorcycles? As we
>> know, there are a lot of places like this in Kathmandu, does dual tagging of
>> highway=pedestrian and motorcyle=yes make sense?
>>
>> I think we agree on motorcycle=yes on this but I'm not too sure whether
>> we use highway=footway or highway=pedestrian. (Which Sakar mentioned in his
>> reply).
>>
>> I would personally prefer highway=pedestrian for the following criteria.
>> a. if the road is as wide enough as a normal road but people use it only
>> for walking (usually city centers, squares, etc),
>>
>> highway=footpath
>> b. The narrow gallis and shortcuts which cannot have a car (sth bigger
>> than a maruti may be because maruti usually can squeeze in any kind of
>> road) move through it. Like the gallis in Bhaktapur or Kathmandu.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The trickiest part when tagging that I come across is deciding between
>> highway=residential and highway=living_street Its usually very difficult
>> deciding between the two. You seem to suggest two possibilities: lacking a
>> footpath, or a street intended for two-way transport which cannot fit cars
>> going both directions at the same time. I think if we pick the latter, it
>> will be most appropriate, as even bigger residential streets in many areas
>> of the city lack footpaths, but the determinant of two cards being able to
>> pass each other at any spot of the road seems like an important one in
>> separating classes of roads.
>>
>> IMO, a living_street has low volume of traffic and usually have more
>> people activities, like mentioned in the wiki, children could be playing in
>> the field, or in Nepal, bunch of people gambling or a 24 hours bar (local
>> bhatti ;-) ) and people sitting in front in chairs drinking milk tea or
>> sth, etc. A highway=residential is more for people just using the road for
>> moving from one place to another.
>> And yes like you said, two way traffic vs only one car at a time is also
>> a nice way to classify the if it is living_street vs residential. Just a
>> note, the one way should probably be a result of more human activities
>> involve
>>
>>
>
> --
> Prabhas Pokharel
> http://twitter.com/prabhasp
> Nepal mobile: +977 98137 91044
> US mobile: +1 347 948 7654
> skype/facebook/whatever: prabhasp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-np mailing list
> Talk-np at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-np
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-np/attachments/20120702/365e9a3e/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-np mailing list