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

[Jherome Miguel]

Have restored the 2019 conventions, with further notes it’s not formally
approved in Talk-ph but is now the accepted usage. It’s a simplified
version of the full guide that was the draft one.

On Mon, Jul 5, 2021 at 12:22 PM Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/a23113be/attachment-0001.htm>