[OSM-np] Classification of Roads in Nepal

Rajeev Amatya rajeevamatya at gmail.com
Sat Jul 21 10:39:22 BST 2012 

Hi guys,

Would be great if we could soon decide on the road standards. Let's get the
discussion/revision going on the osm wiki. You can find the past
conversation below. Here's the link to the wiki.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Nepal:Roads


Cheers,
Rajeev

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:57 AM, bibekshrestha at gmail.com <
bibekshrestha at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120721/db159a50/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-np mailing list