[talk-ph] RFC - Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, names)

Thu Apr 22 20:19:11 UTC 2021

Sorry for the late reply (having being more busy mapping in Canada), but I
have made several modifications to the latest version of the proposal on
the wiki. Some of these are:

-  Additions of special considerations depending on place type (use primary
for highways to other municipalities *that* are provincial capitals, prefer
using trunk on roads to large cities that are designated regional centers
or provincial capitals).
- Changes in *additional* definition of trunk (use it for proposed regional
high-standard highways instead of any long expressway-like arterials like
Commonwealth or Quezon Ave, unless they're a bypass or continuation of an
existing trunk to connect to another). The existing definition of highway
between large cities or metropolitan areas remains BTH.

For the gap on Route 1 in Metro Manila, I think we can better leave the gap
as it is instead.

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 3:42 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello again!
>
> On the original proposal in the wiki (
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads/Classification),
> I've proposed trunk will also be applied to any road resembling an
> expressway, but I’ve changed this to refer to expressway-standard roads
> (design and access restrictions the same as expressway, but may have
> intersections) that are not part of the main expressway network and
> reserved the tag for future adoption, in combination with motorroad=yes.
>
> Looking back at discussions at the wiki from 2007, I’ve been seeing what
> was the real problem with the existing tagging scheme, that it was based on
> the situation in Manila and large cities (and surroundings). Our first
> classification scheme was:
>
> - Motorway - Expressways
> - Trunk - Major highways between major cities
> - Primary - Other major roads linking all other cities and towns
> - Secondary - Roads from the city or town proper to other barangays
> - Tertiary: Main road within a barangay
> - Unclassified: All others
> - Residential: Residential streets
>
> The 2015 scheme is not really a version 2 as I first thought but involved
> clarifications added since route numbering is introduced 2014, plus the
> introduction of living_street for very narrow but passable streets as well
> as some streets full of vendors before the 2019 nationwide road clearings
> but are passable. Continuing from above, there wasn’t any major
> improvement; the definition of tertiary has been clarified to be all other
> roads to barangays, but we still kept the definition of secondary that
> limited its primary use to urban contexts. In general, we haven’t
> considered the situation in the countryside in creating our road
> classification schemes.
>
> - Motorway - Expressways
> - Trunk - Major highways between major cities
> - Primary - Other major roads linking all other cities and towns, and main
> access to City or gown Center from trunk
> - Secondary - Minor arteries, connecting city or town proper and >=3
> barangays.
> - Tertiary: Collectors roads, and other roads between barangays
> - Unclassified: All others
> - Residential: Residential streets
> - Living_street: Narrow but passable streets, including those narrowed by
> obstructions. Pedestrian priority *de facto*.
>
>
> --TagaSanPedroAko
>
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2021, 5:05 AM Jherome Miguel, <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It’s just a week since I have the link to the incomplete
>> map of proposed classifications, and I and DP24 has been moving trunk
>> routes away from poblacion areas to bypasses where present as appropriate
>> (and considering this as well for primaries). Anyone OK with this move?
>> Some of the reclassifications are also in the proposal map.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 12:12 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is the map for the proposed reclassifications:
>>> https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/philippines-proposed-road-classifications_570794
>>> . Map is still being worked on; I have completed mapping the rationalized
>>> trunk road network for North Luzon, including some ongoing bypass road
>>> projects and some primary and secondary roads. All cities and large
>>> municipalities (with populations of 100,000+) have been pinpointed for the
>>> purpose of determining the best classification.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:50 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see your argument, considering the expressways are a separate network
>>>> from national roads, nevertheless we should better rationalize the trunk
>>>> road network in Cavite.
>>>>
>>>> So, continuing on, we still have the gap on Route 1 gap through Metro
>>>> Manila. Route 1 abruptly ends at EDSA-Roxas Boulevard and begins again at
>>>> Alabang, and it remains to be seen how will DPWH bridge it. What would you
>>>> suggest to upgrade to trunk?
>>>>
>>>> - Option 1: (continuing from Roxas Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194,
>>>> Seaside Drive-Quirino Ave), Quirino and Diego Cera avenues (Route 62), and
>>>> Alabang-Zapote Road (Route 411, Zapote-Alabang)
>>>> - Option 2: (continuing from toll-free Osmeña Highway) East and West
>>>> Service Roads
>>>> - Option 3: (continuing from Roxas Boulevard) MIA Road (Route 194,
>>>> Seaside Drive-Ninoy Aquino), Ninoy Aquino Avenue (Route 195), Dr. A. Santos
>>>> Avenue/Sucat Road (Route 63), East Service Road
>>>>
>>>> If we’re to go with bridging the Route 1 gap, I would think it’s Option
>>>> 1, considering that’s the historical route out of Manila before the
>>>> expressways opened, though the roads are somewhat narrow and are mostly
>>>> local streets.
>>>>
>>>> I’m currently creating a web map of the proposed classification using
>>>> UMap, though I’m still in the process of pinpointing the cities and
>>>> municipalities.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:21 PM Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I don't see the logic of downgrading trunk roads merely because there
>>>>> is a parallel expressway. Our expressways are toll=yes roads and if these
>>>>> expressways did not exist, then these trunk roads would correctly be tagged
>>>>> as highway=trunk. I think that we disregard the existence of
>>>>> highway=motorway roads for the purposes of classifying the rest of the road
>>>>> network. Many people for various reasons want to avoid going through toll
>>>>> roads and having highway=trunk roads as an indicator of suitable alternate
>>>>> routes is important.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 4:51 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Continuing on, I raised this unanswered question about downgrading
>>>>>> trunks where significantly bypassed by a parallel expressway (unless it has
>>>>>> a significant section resembling an expressway as in proposal). I thinking
>>>>>> of doing that for these road segments currently tagged trunk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - National Highway/Maharlika Highway/Manila South Road (Route 1,
>>>>>> Muntinlupa
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Manila+South+Road+(Route+1,+Muntinlupa?entry=gmail&source=g>-Calamba-STAR
>>>>>> Santo Tomas exit) — bypassed by SLEX
>>>>>> - JP Laurel Highway/Manila-Batangas Road (Route 4, Santo
>>>>>> Tomas-Batangas City) — bypassed by STAR Tollway
>>>>>> - MacArthur Highway (Route 1, Caloocan-Tabang, Guiguinto) — bypassed
>>>>>> by NLEX
>>>>>> - Osmeña Highway (Route 145
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Osme%C3%B1a+Highway+(Route+145?entry=gmail&source=g>)
>>>>>> and Quirino Avenue (Route 140, Roxas Boulevard
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Quirino+Avenue+(Route+140,+Roxas+Boulevard?entry=gmail&source=g>-Osmeña
>>>>>> Highway) — bypassed by Skyway
>>>>>> — Olongapo-San Fernando-Gapan Road/Jose Abad Santos Avenue (Route 3,
>>>>>> Dinalupihan
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Jose+Abad+Santos+Avenue+(Route+3,+Dinalupihan?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>> Junction-Olongapo) — bypassed by SCTEX
>>>>>> — Manila North Road (Route 2
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Manila+North+Road+(Route+2?entry=gmail&source=g>,
>>>>>> TPLEX Urdaneta exit-Kennon Road)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (for future downgrades, once new parallel expressway under
>>>>>> construction opens. Might need some discussion)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> — Aguinaldo Highway (Route 62/419, Bacoor
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Aguinaldo+Highway+(Route+62%2F419,+Bacoor?entry=gmail&source=g>-Dasma-Tagaytay)
>>>>>> — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining trunks in
>>>>>> Cavite.
>>>>>> — Antero Soriano Highway/Centennial Road/Tanza-Trece Martires Road
>>>>>> (Route 64
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Tanza-Trece+Martires+Road+(Route+64?entry=gmail&source=g>,
>>>>>> Kawit-Tanza-Trece Martires) — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also
>>>>>> downgrade all the remaining trunks in Cavite.
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Cavite.+%E2%80%94+Governor%E2%80%99s+Drive+(Route+65,+Dasma?entry=gmail&source=g>
>>>>>> — Governor’s Drive (Route 65, Dasma
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Cavite.+%E2%80%94+Governor%E2%80%99s+Drive+(Route+65,+Dasma?entry=gmail&source=g>-Biñan)
>>>>>> — to be bypassed by CALAX. Will also downgrade all the remaining
>>>>>> trunks in Cavite.
>>>>>> — Tarlac-Santa Rosa Road (Route 58
>>>>>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/Tarlac-Santa+Rosa+Road+(Route+58?entry=gmail&source=g>)
>>>>>> — to be bypassed by CLLEX (downgrade to be done once whole Tarlac
>>>>>> City-Cabanatuan route is opened)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Beside that, I’ll prepare maps (for Luzon, Metro Manila, Panay,
>>>>>> Negros, Cebu, Samar and Leyte, and Mindanao) of routes to be
>>>>>> classified trunk using the proposed criteria. There is a significant need
>>>>>> to rationalize the trunk networks, especially in the less populated islands
>>>>>> or regions.
>>>>>> From there, we go on to determine the primaries and so on. I’ll also
>>>>>> post a list of major roads and their proposed future classifications
>>>>>> (to be divided by region and province) on the wiki. Any further comment or
>>>>>> feedback is welcome here or on the wiki.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:54 AM Jherome Miguel <
>>>>>> jheromemiguel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For names, I agree there is a problem. Posted road name can be
>>>>>>> inconsistent across different jurisdictions or even within the same
>>>>>>> jurisdiction. That’s the reason we need to review how we map street names
>>>>>>> (we rely too much on road signs). There’s a lot of instances the road signs
>>>>>>> omit suffixes (especially “Street/St”) while the addresses use the full
>>>>>>> name. We seem to forget a road’s name= is also used for addr:street=.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main point behind the proposed guidelines is to better align PH
>>>>>>> practice with global tagging practices. We have a road classification
>>>>>>> system that  is too watered down and is somewhat only appropriate to urban
>>>>>>> areas. Our practice on naming roads had rather preferred short names to
>>>>>>> reduce clutter and deter mappers who abbreviate them, but that somewhat
>>>>>>> raises issues about mapping for the renderer (whether to keep, abbreviate
>>>>>>> or remove street name affixes is up to them), plus, we’ve got into the
>>>>>>> problem of relying too much on street signs, forgetting some roads have no
>>>>>>> names posted on any official road sign and the name verifiable from asking
>>>>>>> locals or finding posted addresses, and addresses posted on business signs
>>>>>>> (or even their ads, business cards and things) should be used as sources as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 4:09 AM Michael Cole <colemichae at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We have a problem with names even 1 way streets, real law vs
>>>>>>>> locality. And i live in poblacion mkt, mmda break the actual law, who is
>>>>>>>> correct? Do we take the word of corodiles over the country or.enforce the
>>>>>>>> law and get people.arrested fined illegally?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My 2 cents ..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 1:23 PM Jherome Miguel, <
>>>>>>>> jheromemiguel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After somewhat slow progress to gather ideas and feedback for a
>>>>>>>>> new road classification scheme, I finally decided to write the final
>>>>>>>>> version of the new tagging scheme at:
>>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads
>>>>>>>>> (see “Classification” section)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The proposal is planned to replace those at
>>>>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions (sections,
>>>>>>>>> “Roads”, “Names”)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Why? *The existing road classification scheme since 2015 needs a
>>>>>>>>> major rewrite since I’m seeing major problems with the tree analogy used to
>>>>>>>>> justify the existing scheme. Why use primary for every road to each
>>>>>>>>> municipality regardless of its population size (just because they’re a
>>>>>>>>> branch or an alternate to a trunk)? Shouldn’t we use trunks only on the
>>>>>>>>> most important highway links between the largest cities beside the
>>>>>>>>> expressways? Many of our provinces lack secondaries in the rural area but
>>>>>>>>> do have lots of tertiaries surrounded by trunk and primary roads (and a
>>>>>>>>> total lack of secondary roads). Lots of Philippines mappers (including me)
>>>>>>>>> ignore that bad scheme, which just came to effect without discussion or
>>>>>>>>> consultation. It’s also time for us to take community population sizes as
>>>>>>>>> well as designations in account when classifying roads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, guidelines about road names are to be affected as well
>>>>>>>>> (following latest discussion). This includes changes in the existing
>>>>>>>>> guideline to prefer full names as used in addresses (since names posted in
>>>>>>>>> street signs can be inconsistent). One open question is on how to name many
>>>>>>>>> of the major rural roads without posted names (national roads aside, whose
>>>>>>>>> names, unless the locally verifiable posted name is different, can be found
>>>>>>>>> from the DPWH road database) until their actual names are verified. For me,
>>>>>>>>> it’s in the form “<most important community>-<less important community>
>>>>>>>>> Road”, though I also experimented with adding noname=yes instead of adding
>>>>>>>>> placeholder names using the format mentioned above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any comments/suggestion/feedback on this are welcome here or on
>>>>>>>>> the article’s talk page.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>>>>>>>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> talk-ph mailing list
>>>>>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20210422/2678eedb/attachment-0001.htm>