[talk-ph] NHN 2 Luzon
Rally de Leon
ralleon at gmail.com
Wed Mar 11 12:33:14 UTC 2015
Related issues in connection with DPWH's database (new Classification &
Road Classification:DPWH's internal road class (primary & secondary) will
generally be our reference guide, but will not work with OSM as there is no
(eg. their 'primary' seems to correspond to OSM's 'trunk' but not always;
Secondary is more often than not - equivalent to OSM's Primary, but may
become Secondary etc.).
And besides, DPWH doesn't seem to follow the best practices in map making.
Their "classification" is the result to motorists volume per day, as well
as with considerations to connecting towns with big population, and or
connection to major ports
Our OSMPH mapper's classification seem to follow the "function" of the road
and it's relation to economic activity and flow of commerce 'relative' to
the region -- no absolute rule. (just my observation) And it follows a
smoother path, not stopping abruptly out of nowhere.
There are lots of exceptions/observations I discovered in classifying roads
(to the rules and biases we are accustomed to), in fact I need to undo a
lot of my own stupid edits, eg. making Marikina-Infanta Road as trunk (by
previous consensus that all main roads crossing 'provincial boundaries' are
trunk roads, which I will revert to Primary (something like that).
We have to weigh-in between OSMPH's best practices and the logic behind
DPWH's system. This is for discussion later, so we can agree on a new
guideline based on our new discoveries/observations (on-going)
As to NAMING ROADS:
I agree with maning earlier, that we use name on OSM as we see them in
physical object, eg. Street Signs -
name=<common name> and NOT the "official name" commonly dictated by the law
or ordinance. we have official_name= which can be used for that purpose.
The longer the road name - the smaller the printed font gets,
-the lesser visible they becomes (on highway);
-the more clutter on digital devices and paper maps.
But we stick to the OSM's use of complete suffix (eg. Street) even though I
This suggested unofficial guideline for our local mappers is in lieu of
non-existent PH law prescribing maximum length of Road names - which should
be on the practical side,
Anyways, like it or not ...is already unofficially practiced by LGU's and
some govt agencies
- look at Manila's bigger street signs, adopting: "Osmeña Hwy, Quirino Hwy"
instead of the long "President Osmeña Highway" "Pres. Quirino Highway as
seen on the older street sign).
- The many variants of Buendia Ave (still in use in newer signs), Sen. Gil
Puyat Ave, G. Puyat Ave, Gil Puyat Ave. but they will eventually go for the
- how many signboards have we seen written with the official name "Epifanio
Delos Santos Avenue" instead of EDSA (which is in most if not all of the
- same with SLEX, NLEX, SCTEX,... and yes, even in the new list of DPWH
official names says it's SLEX, NLEX, SCTEX etc.
On the good side, since ref=SLEX ref=NLEX will disappear soon, they will be
replaced with an easy to read and highly visible road names on the road
Other Issues: Sorting Order (in dropdown menus, or simple search in tiny
keyboards, or paper index) can also be a problem with many unofficial
variants of spelling. Then why prolong the agony and save some tax payers
money by not contributing to the confusion on conflicting signboard
entries? LGU just google the name, or look at OSM for naming guidance. ;-)
We better make it right and consistent with the "actual". Maybe just maybe,
a congressman will notice the pattern in naming conventions in our maps,
then do something about it.
This topic will be for discussion later (on another thread), but don't be
surprised if some (including me) have initiated changes in road names. I
already did EDSA :-)
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Rally de Leon <ralleon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ronny,
> 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 long)
>> 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 a
>>> bit of time sometimes), and then I noticed the new relation, and I
>>> 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 is
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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