[talk-ph] NHN 2 Luzon

Ronny Ager-Wick ronny at ager-wick.com
Wed Mar 11 08:32:55 UTC 2015


I noticed Rally's recent update including MacArthur highway in NHN 2 Luzon:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4659407#map=8/15.824/120.361
I assume this was due to some updated guidelines from DPWH or something.

I noticed this because I had just meticulously updated the name of every
segment of MacArthur Highway from San Fernando/Angeles Border to
Angeles/Mabalacat border, and every single name I had fixed, as well as all
the previous ones, had now disappeared. I updated the name manually working
myself south until I realized something must be up (yes, I know, it takes a
bit of time sometimes), and then I noticed the new relation, and I noticed
that (probably) on every segment of this relation, the name had disappeared.

Was it intentional to delete the name of every segment of the road now called
"Route 2"?
If not, there are probably a lot of other segments that needs its name restored.

By the way, is "Manila North Road" another name for MacArthur Highway, or is
MacArthur just a small part of it?

As pointed out earlier, it used to be called R-9, which is a theoretical name
only, as everyone refers to it - or at least the segment I'm familiar with -
as MacArthur Highway. Now, it's suddenly called "2". Again, nobody who lives
or works or drives along this road apart from maybe a few of us and some
people at DPWH knows about this, yet the "2" label is the most prominent on a
lot of maps, as it's defined by the ref tag in OSM. I regularly drive this
route, and I have yet to see a single sign with either R-9 or 2 or N2 or
whatever. Granted, there's probably not a single sign saying MacArthur Highway
either, but that's the name people know.
If you print a map and based on that ask people how to get to Route 2, N2, or
R-9 your query is unlikely to receive an answer. So in terms of usefulness,
having that ref displayed prominently is pointless.

Do we map "ground truth" and use the references that are most useful to people
(putting DPWH dream labels like "2" and "R-9" in nat_ref), or should we
blindly follow official references, even if nobody else are actively using
them and no signs indicate them?
The latter means waiting for DPWH to put up signs, which could take 10 or 20
years, if not eternity.

Or shall we use both?
Personally, I would set ref to "MacArthur;2" or "MacArthur;N2", set nat_ref to
"2" and leave the name as the full name of the given road, regardless of route
membership. This way we deal with both current and future needs.

PS: I realize DPWH may be looking to build a route network like in Europe or
America, and that's great. But until they have finished putting up the signs,
it's meaningless. In Europe the E-roads are well known, and putting the E
route number as a ref is completely logical, as every road in this network is
marked with the route number after *every* intersection, plus every few km
should there be no intersections for a while. In Europe, if they build a new
improved road in the E-network, that road is marked as such before it is
opened, and the old road is marked as something else (a regional route
number), and all signs with the E-route number are removed from it overnight.
I'd love that to be the case here, but until then, we need to consider what
ref to actually use.




More information about the talk-ph mailing list