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

[Timeo Gut]

Hello Jherome,

I just noticed now the changes 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Philippines%2FMapping_conventions&type=revision&diff=2120307&oldid=2119874> 
that you made to the classifications table on the main mapping 
conventions page. You basically removed all the refinement and updates 
that have been made over the last 5 years (by yourself and by others). 
Besides the questionable deleting of a lot of important details, I find 
it very confusing that you reintroduced definitions that have been 
replaced almost two years ago. These old definitions do not reflect 
current usage anymore.

While never formally approved, by observing how classifications are 
applied by mappers it seems clear that the changes were widely accepted.

I think it would be best to restore the March 1 version of the table and 
then proceed from there with bite-sized modifications whenever further 
refinement is appropriate.


On 2021-07-04 12:29, Jherome Miguel 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 
> <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/20210705/9e7d6582/attachment.htm>