[talk-ph] NHN 2 Luzon
Rally de Leon
ralleon at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 11:35:25 UTC 2015
At the moment, I'm doing damage control (just discovered it an hour ago). I
think I accidentally erased MacArthur Highway's name along Manila North
Road. Based on edit history, it was on March 9. Too late I just had to
rename it back instead of reverting, (or maybe I'm way too late if somebody
beat me into reverting instead, due to simultaneous edits).
As for the affected bridges' names, there's a complete list of bridge names
at "philippine geoportal" - so no problem later.
Another thing, I just discovered that MacArthur Highway doesn't extend to
La Union (my previous impression). I think it's from Balintawak to
Urdaneta, then run eastward towards Dagupan-Lingayen (per REPUBLIC ACT NO.
3080). -- which makes sense as this was probably the route used to Liberate
Manila. All roads northward after Urdaneta Juction are still officially
"Manila North Road", unless an LGU decided to rename a portion to another
name. But then again, this is a major National Road (I don't know if LGU
can do that).
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Rally de Leon <ralleon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ronny,
> This past week, I've been editing OSM all over PH particularly primary
> roads. That's why the old ref's are being replaced to be the same as DPWH's
> system, and are stored in duplicates with Route Relations. As soon as I can
> get the right work flow (still doing trial and error on format), I will
> invite all of you to edit, coz there's a lot to do (particularly the
> Section_ID per DPWH engineering district)
> A few hours ago, (per DPWH request) my experimental "NBN route name
> format" were all converted to Nxxx format. Thus route 1 is N1, route 2 is
> N2 etc. to be more compatible with DPWH's database.
> Yup, it's the new official route numbering system being implemented by
> DPWH. see:
> We cannot do anything about the new route number system. It's the future.
> Wazers were the first to implement this on wide scale. All our
> outdated/obsolete route numbers in OSM must go, (even the ones I introduced
> eg. SNRH, MNR, etc. for the same personal reason ...rendering) :-) I know
> many will feel sentimental, but sorry to say even NLEX, TPLEX, SCTEX, etc
> will have to disappear in favor of E series route numbers.
> In fact, I emailed my favorite map app Maps.ME regarding support for
> double value ref, eg. the ones you introduced in MacArthur, as well as the
> one I am currently experimenting on EDSA (eg. ref=1,AH26). I saw the
> rendering will be a bit ugly (but tolerable). But using double value on
> ref, will not help people (using "simple search" for a particular ref value
> if unknowingly, some of the ref (which is officially used) has some
> extraneous values). Good thing we introducing Route Relations, so there
> will be less headache for those who are into data extractions - should
> future users or newbie customize the ref's.
> Connected to this, there an ongoing trend in the transport planning that
> will make Circumferential & Radial Road system irrelevant in the future,
> (even on Official Gazette)
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM_Z4CGgZSM&feature=youtu.be C-5, C-4,
> R8, R6 etc will probably just become "road names" (not a road system). They
> will also disappear from OSM in favor of new DPWH's system.
> If we are still not seeing the big picture in adopting a consistent route
> number format (at least for non-programmer mortal like me),
> -future researchers, auditor, journalist, contractors, etc. can look up
> Section_ID of a particular DPWH road project.
> -said Route relations (portions) can be recycled for other purposes, eg.
> administrative boundaries, bus routes, navigation apps, other custom
> routes, will be very easy coz we don't have to trace same routes again etc.
> (like somebody in Davao is mapping transport routes on top of existing
> roads (by literally drawing another way on top), which is a pain to look at)
> -Digital Sat Nav devices' auto-route are now referring to Route Numbers
> instead of the non-consistent highway names (makes travelling simple) eg.
> follow highway shield (road markers with route numbers along the highway)
> instead of looking at the varying road names.
> Will discuss more later (sorry for my usual me, this email is getting very
> Rally :-)
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Ronny Ager-Wick <ronny at ager-wick.com>
>> I noticed Rally's recent update including MacArthur highway in NHN 2
>> 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
>> the previous ones, had now disappeared. I updated the name manually
>> myself south until I realized something must be up (yes, I know, it takes
>> 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
>> Was it intentional to delete the name of every segment of the road now
>> "Route 2"?
>> If not, there are probably a lot of other segments that needs its name
>> By the way, is "Manila North Road" another name for MacArthur Highway, or
>> MacArthur just a small part of it?
>> As pointed out earlier, it used to be called R-9, which is a theoretical
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> having that ref displayed prominently is pointless.
>> Do we map "ground truth" and use the references that are most useful to
>> (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
>> 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
>> 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
>> America, and that's great. But until they have finished putting up the
>> 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
>> 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
>> I'd love that to be the case here, but until then, we need to consider
>> ref to actually use.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk-ph