[OSM-np] Classification of Roads in Nepal

Thu Jul 5 10:57:19 BST 2012

Hey guys, nice discussion going around.
I would like to propose that we take the discussion on the Discussions Page
in the wiki?
Specially could you guys take a look at this
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Nepal:Roads#Examples
where I've noted down "Examples" of different road sections around KTM. It
could help us simply road classifications even more?
It is still a work in progress.

Waiting for your feedbacks.
--
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 Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Prabhas Pokharel <prabhas.pokharel at gmail.com
> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120705/656ecc23/attachment-0001.html>