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

[Jherome Miguel]

The reason behind it is because the changes was not the consensus. It was
around 2019, and there’s that edit war that got me blocked for one day; the
proposed changes is still on the drafting table that time. I restored the
2015 guidelines and provided a link to the draft from there, but I didn’t
know the draft convention has been accepted widely, even if it’s not
formally approved here in talk-PH. That being said, we can still discuss
any further bite-size refinements here, as well any possibly contentious
reclassifications (including those that has been planned, see the linked
uMap on the wiki).

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 10:45 AM Timeo Gut <timeo.gut at hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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)
>
> 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 listtalk-ph at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20210705/0264afdf/attachment-0001.htm>