[talk-ph] Your final say on the proposed road classification scheme

[Erwin Olario]

Correction: I never proposed changing OSM highway classifications with
government designations.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
» email: erwin@ <erwin at ngnuity.net>*n**gnu**it**y**.xyz*
<http://ngnuity.xyz/>
» mobile: https://t.me/GOwin
» OpenPGP key: 3A93D56B | 5D42 7CCB 8827 9046 1ACB 0B94 63A4 81CE 3A93 D56B


On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 1:32 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Continuing on, I would also like to bring up some points back on the
> earlier discussion at the git (see
> https://github.com/OSMPH/papercut_fix/issues/38)
>
> First, I see problems with Rally’s methodology for determining trunk
> roads. Particularly problematic is using the tree-trunk analogy (a.k.a.
> “scissors test”) to determine trunk roads. I completely disagree with that
> for it would made a lot of roads get upgraded to trunk because it’s being
> an critical link for movement of goods in one’s opinion, and led to primary
> and below its “branches”. I agree trunk roads are generally vital highway
> links, but this time, we need a more reasonable cut-off, that is, the route
> should a key road link between major population centers (i.e. large
> cities).
>
> Another problem back in the first discussions on possible reform of the
> existing scheme back in 2018 is regarding the designation national road.
> Yeah, I agree it’s more of a funding classification, but during that time,
> I haven’t mentioned and accounted for its subclasses (national primary,
> national secondary, national tertiary) as found in the DPWH department
> order I referenced, which has defining functional criteria that is of
> relevance in OSM, resulting to the argument to deemphasize official
> designation and use informal tests that would only worsen the problem with
> the already dense trunk road network. Add to the problem is the presence of
> two proposals, one by me (which is based on multiple factors) and one by
> Erwin (which ties OSM classification with gov’t designation).
>
> Beyond that, I just realized after digging into older discussions in the
> wiki that the existing road classification schemes documented in the wiki
> are more of suggestions by one or few users. I can’t find any discussion
> here and in the wiki leading to their adoption as formal guidelines; these
> suggestion became guidelines as mappers begin to take them as such. Again,
> the prevailing scheme the from 2015 is being more of an amendment to the
> pre-existing scheme.
>
> Until we reach any agreement here, we would be following the existing
> classification scheme, but taking note these are more of suggestions or
> rough guidelines, we should have a relaxed approach on applying these. I
> would also tag the existing scheme documented in the wiki as containing
> conflicting, controversial or outdated information.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210704/15c08f00/attachment.htm>