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

[Erwin Olario]

If you are referring to this draft table [0], then I suppose you remember
it incorrectly.

[0] https://imgur.com/wO7WLdG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
» 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 Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:26 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Aw, sorry for my last post. I see now you’ve possibly misread or missed
> part of my email that you replied to. I was saying you have the first draft
> proposal where the OSM classification of a road is closely tied to the
> road’s official designation (i.e. trunk = national road, primary =
> provincial road, secondary = city/municipal road, tertiary = barangay
> road), which many of us disagree with because official road classifications
> has more to do with funding, and won’t create a good road map.
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:37 AM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for that, I can’t recall everything in the git ticket. Who actually
>> did the second proposal?
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 12:11 AM Erwin Olario <govvin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/20210705/08fa398c/attachment-0001.htm>