[OSM-np] Classification of Roads in Nepal

Thu Jul 5 07:11:21 BST 2012

Sakar, thanks for that first stab. It has made me think again of the
Koteshwor Highway, and think that it actually does deserve its own
category. A revision for discussion (everything revised in blue):

Type A0: Roads like in Type A, but which do not allow connections to other
> roads except at marked exit/entries and intersection / traffic points.
>
*highway = motorway*

>
>
> 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.
> *
> highway = trunk **motorway*
>
>  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)
>
> *Highway = primary **trunk*
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.*Highway = **trunk_link (if they ar econnecting Type B)** *(REASON:
> the _link is mainly used for on- and off-ramps on highways of the "western
> world" (for the lack of a better word). i think we should use _link only
> for pieces of roads that are only connections between roads, for example
> like the sections of roads in Maitighar and Tinkune. for longer roads, we
> should go to a longer form, either secondary or tertiary).
>
* Hightway = tertiary **(otherwise)*
>
> Type C1: Like a Type C but an only accommodate one car at a time in either
> direction (though the road itself might be a two way)
> *Highway = residential*

(question: what about type C roads that have speedbumps? i think roads with
speedbumps (the small kind, not the large speedbumps like on the thapathali
bridge) should be qualified at residential and below.)

> [image: Description: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif]
>
>
> Type D: Unpaved roads intended for cars.
>
> *Highway = track*
>
(here, i would change to highway=residential/tertiary and surface=dirt
rather than highway=track. personally, i think highway=track should be
reserved for dirt roads that are a bit 'out there' and not urban dirt
roads. this also goes along with rajeev's thoughts on not letting pavedness
determine the category of roads.)

>
>
> Type E: unpaved or paved galli's that will not fit cars but motorcycles
> and cycles can go through them
>
> *Highway = path (then tag bicycle, foot and motorcycle)*
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> *Highway = living_street*
>

> (i actually think determining the difference between type c1 and type f is
> a bit complex. we should maybe think about a 'default' choice: ie, if you
> are confused, choose c1. if its clearly an F, then its an F.)
>
> As before, Type B, C and C1 are the confusing points
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Prabhas Pokharel <
> prabhas.pokharel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, July 4, 2012, Sakar Pudasaini wrote:
>>
>>> Rajeev,
>>>
>>> It makes perfect sense. And it has simplicity on its side which is
>>> generally a winner in my book.
>>>
>>> In this case though I do worry the system proposed is conflating too
>>> much into a single value. At some point this stuff have to rendered
>>> visually and for all 2 lane roads to look the same might not be so good. As
>>> for the upkeep problem, that is going to be a pain in the ass in a fast
>>> urbanizing city like Ktm anyway.
>>>
>>> Prabhas,
>>>
>>> You attempt to a description for Type A1 and I'll attempt to classify
>>> them into the final classifications :-) Deal?
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for forcing me to think about it. I withdraw my A1 proposal. I
>> think the Koteshwor highway is a particularly "advanced" A, but we can just
>> differentiate that by tagging the number of lanes in each of the ways.
>> Pat of it will be taken care by one thing we should do, which is to
>> separate 'divided' highways (where you can't take a u-turn, or take a right
>> turn, etc.) that I thought of as I was driving down Baneshwor. Parts of
>> Baneshwor<->Maitighar, Koteshwor<->Thimi, and Putalisadak are like this.
>>
>> The other thought that is worth mentioning is that it may not be a bad
>> thing to have different standards for Kathmandu and rest of Nepal for some
>> of the road classification issues (although we should make these
>> differences very limited).
>>
>> -S
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Rajeev Amatya <rajeevamatya at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Pardon me if I do not make any sense.
>>>
>>> Whether a street is paved or not will change over time and we may not be
>>> able to update the info regularly. If possible, we should only use tag for
>>> that.
>>>
>>> I would rather categorize the roads by lanes and go with particular
>>> attributes. Naming could be done accordingly.
>>>
>>> The tags in italics are not necessary.
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> For urban roads,
>>> categories:
>>> 1. Multi-lane road,* tag footpath, tag traffic lights??* (eg. baneshwor
>>> to maitighar)
>>> 2. Two lane road, tag footpath * tag traffic lights??* (eg. thapathali
>>> area?)
>>> 3. Two lane road, tag no_footpath,  tag traffic lights?? (eg. airport to
>>> sinamangal)
>>>
>>> 4. One lane road, access two cars, one or two way tag
>>> 5. One lane road, access one car, one or two way tag
>>>
>>> 6. No lane road,* access bike/bicycle*, tag restricted (eg. durbar
>>> square, shankhamool bridge)
>>> 7. No lane road, *access bike/bicycle*, tag crowded (eg. ason)
>>> 8. No lane road, *access bike/bicycle*, tag narrow (gallis)
>>>
>>> rajeev
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Sakar Pudasaini <sakar at galligalli.org>wrote:
>>>
>>> For the moment I say we favor proliferation. And then we go through a
>>> round of culling. So I've added a Type A1 and Type C1 to accommodate your
>>> suggestions. Perhaps you could type out your thoughts more "formally" to
>>> give us a working definition on the A's since that is unclear to me.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Type A1:
>>>
>>> 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)
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Type C1: Like a Type C but an only accommodate one car at a time in
>>> either direction (though the road itself might be a two way)
>>>
>>> Type D: Unpaved roads intended for cars.
>>>
>>> Type E: unpaved or paved galli's that will not fit cars but motorcycles
>>> and cycles can go through them
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Prabhas Pokharel <
>>> prabhas.pokharel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sakar, I like that. Lets go with it a bit.
>>>
>>> What about the difference Bibek and I were chatting about... roads which
>>> are otherwise Type C, but two cars side by side could not fit on them. Lots
>>> of roads in the Purano Baneshwor / Gaushala area, in Patan area, etc. Do
>>> you think that is worth separating out?
>>>
>>> Finally, on the type A side, is there a difference between the new
>>> Koteshwor highway, and type A (I think ring road at one end of this and
>>> Mahendra Highway on the other)? I could go either way on this, probably
>>> merging them into the
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, July 2, 2012, Sakar Pudasaini wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Prabhas Pokharel
>> http://twitter.com/prabhasp
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-np mailing list
> Talk-np at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-np
>
>

-- 
Prabhas Pokharel
http://twitter.com/prabhasp
US mobile: +1 347 948 7654
skype/facebook/whatever: prabhasp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-np/attachments/20120705/ec6bfb38/attachment-0001.html>