[talk-ph] NHN 2 Luzon

Ronny Ager-Wick ronny at ager-wick.com
Wed Mar 11 14:13:14 UTC 2015

Hash: SHA1

Thank you Rally, for your clarifications.

Yes, I will dearly miss the SLEX, etc. refs that are in use now. They are so
nice, and practical. But with my background in the European E-road system, I
can understand why they do these changes. I can't wait for those silly C- and
R- roads to disappear as the primary route ref. That change I will fully support!

Part of me still want double refs, but I guess we'll just have to accept
progress here. But it would have been nice if DPWH could put up signs on ALL
roads, not just those in Metro Manila, and preferably in this decade! Before
they achieve that, we will have a map that works some time in the future, but
is a source of confusion right now. And they better put lots of them! In
Europe I think they put it 50 or 100 meters after every intersection, together
with the speed limit. This is imperative so that you know which road you just
turned on to, and how fast you can drive.

I'll have a look at DPWH's road class system. That will be useful as up to
now, I've normally guessed the classification based on the size, importance
and traffic on a road together with how it is connected. I've tried to make it
logical, and if routing software pick higher classified roads over lower, it
should route pretty well, despite all one way streets. I just did a major
overhaul in Angeles town proper, downgrading a lot of roads and upgrading
some, but I'm sure there are still issues. At least we can use DPWH's system
as a guide, even if not 100% compatible.

Thanks for that info about road naming, I will keep that in mind when I come
across differing names actually in use and official names.
Speaking of naming, and your example, why not just use "Buendia" on all of
Buendia/Sen. Gil Puyat? Even the MRT station is called Buendia! It seems (to
me at least, but I'm not there very often) that Buendia is the name people
call it and Gil Puyat is more a politically motivated name change, that nobody
really cared about. I'm just guessing, of course.

Maybe I should email DPWH about those road markers. I would feel a lot less
sentimental about the old names if complete signage with the new ones was
already present...


On 2015-03-11 20:33, Rally de Leon wrote:
> Related issues in connection with DPWH's database (new Classification & Route numbers):
> 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
direct relation.
> (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)
> 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
disagree :-)
> 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
> eg.
> - 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
shorter version.
> - 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 itself
> eg. name=SLEX
> 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 :-)
> Cheers,
> Rally
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:35 PM, Rally de Leon <ralleon at gmail.com
<mailto: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).
>     -Rally
>     On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:28 PM, Rally de Leon <ralleon at gmail.com
<mailto: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)
>         Cheers,
>         Rally :-)
>         On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Ronny Ager-Wick
<ronny at ager-wick.com <mailto:ronny at ager-wick.com>> wrote:
>             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
>             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
>             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
>             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
>             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.

Version: GnuPG v1


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20150311/89d52132/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the talk-ph mailing list