[talk-ph] Proposed mapping guidelines for roads (classifications, construction, names)
Timeo Gut
timeo.gut at hotmail.com
Sat Apr 24 06:29:03 UTC 2021
Hello everyone,
The additional considerations seem well-thought-out to me.
I've also went ahead and documented the designation values that were
proposed by Seav back in 2018. Are there any opinions on this?
There are a few more important points that have been raised or at least
vaguely mentioned before but have never really been discussed.
____
How should we classify roads on smaller islands that do not have any
single municipality or city that would meet the proposed population
criteria for primary roads? Currently there does not seem to be a
uniform approach. As specific examples we could look at the following
islands:
Samal, population 105k, area 300 km2, currently secondary
Ticao, population 90k, area 330 km2, currently secondary
Burias, population 90k, area 420 km2, currently primary
Sibuyan, population 40k, area 450 km2, currently primary
Alabat, population 40k, area 200 km2, currently tertiary
Should we just consider total island population? This would lead to
upgrade to primary in Samal, upgrade on Alabat to secondary and
downgrade to secondary on Burias and Sibuyan. Or should we not apply
population criteria here considering that for example Sibuyan
Circumferential road has a lenght of almost 100km? Personally I would
tend to option 2 as a limitation to only secondary/tertiary/unclassified
might be insufficient in distinguishing relative importance of
individual roads on such large islands.
Also, the main roads on three of these islands have been recently
downgraded by apple data team. In two cases (Samal and Alabat) new
classification does neither reflect old classification conventions nor
the ongoing proposal. While downgrade in case of Ticao seems arbitrary
given the almost identical population/area/road length as Burias. Would
anyone support reaching out to ADT about this?
____
Another aspect of classifications that I think we should specify are
roads under construction. Especially in cases of multi-year road opening
projects where roads already serve as footway, cycleway, residential,
unclassified or tertiary long before full connectivity is achieved.
Maybe we could start building a consensus on this by analyzing specific
situations:
Example 1: Cauayan City Bypass Road
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/844417527)
Whole length is accesible by foot and bike, except 3 interruptions by
unfinished waterway crossings, one part of the alignment is an existing
section of unclassified road. Should we tag all sections that are in
partial use already with highway=primary with current access
restrictions/surface/width and only leave the unpassable sections as
highway=construction? Or should every section be tagged by it's current
usage?
Example 2: Northern Section of Mindoro Circumferential Road
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/776641003)
Whole length is frequently traversed by cyclists and most likely also
motorbikes. Same question, should everything be tagged as
highway=primary with access restrictions/surface/width or should
unfinished sections be changed to unclassified and path? What about the
already finished sections in between Abra de Ilog Port and Puerto
Galera? Should they be downgraded to tertiary until connectivity is
achieved?
I propose to use method 1 in case of major bypass roads in or near urban
areas (example 1) given that these usually really are perceived as
unfinished highways. On the other side I propose to use method 2 for
construction projects in rural areas (example 2) considering that almost
always these routes are replacing segments of pre-existing local roads
or trails and the local perceptions is that there is no highway yet.
____
One last point regarding road naming, it would be good if we could agree
on an uniform approach about whether we should use spaces before and
after hyphens. This might seem like a trivial question, but I think the
current situation is a bit chaotic, especially for long routes where
variants might alternate multiple times along the course. Sometimes
there's even a third variant with em dashes (—).
Example: Davao-Surigao Coastal Road vs. Davao - Surigao Coastal Road
(https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/894848575)
I'd like to propose that we stick to regular hyphens without spaces to
conform with the orthography in official records and documents.
____
Best regards,
Timmy_Tesseract
On 23/04/2021 03:19, Jherome Miguel wrote:
> 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 <mailto:jheromemiguel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Hello again!
>
> On the original proposal in the wiki (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Mapping_conventions/Roads/Classification
> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto:jheromemiguel at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Here is the map for the proposed reclassifications:
> https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/philippines-proposed-road-classifications_570794
> <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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <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
> <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
> <mailto:talk-ph at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> <mailto:talk-ph at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
> <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/20210424/01ac9f8e/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the talk-ph
mailing list