[Talk-us-massachusetts] Massachusetts Highway Classifications

Fri May 14 12:46:28 UTC 2021

To put it more simply (I hope the chart formatting is retained):

F_Class 	original import
	proposed
1 	motorway 	motorway
2 	primary 	trunk
3 	secondary 	primary
4 	(not used) 	
5 	secondary 	secondary
6 	tertiary 	tertiary
0 	residential 	residential

The original import translated both 3 & 5 as secondary, so the bulk of 
the work would be re-tagging F_Class 3 as primary

On 5/14/2021 8:13 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> "Brian M. Sperlongano" <zelonewolf at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I've been working with a group of mostly Northeast mappers (shout out to
>> aweech, Zeke Farwell, adamfranco, Rassilon, ZLima12, Kevin Kenny &
>> compdude) to develop new highway classification standards[3] that we're
>> hoping can evolve into replacement highway classification standards.  The
>> new guidelines that we've drafted emphasize road importance and through
>> connectivity, to ensure that map renders at lower zoom levels can
>> appropriately show long-distance road connectivity between population
>> centers.
> In general I think what you are proposing is a good thing.  I guess part
> of it is separating the three concepts physical, functional, and usage
> metrics, and part of it are two arguments about which of those
> primary/secondary/ and so on should be controlled by, and then how
> rendering decisions (both color and whether to show are made.  Given the
> problem of how the default render has more influence than it should, I
> can see the point that making the adjustment by
> primary/secondary/etc. classification is the only viable path.
>
>> [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States/Highway_classification
> I do think that what I view as the previous consensus that trunk be
> physically "almost motorway but not quite" is an important concept, and
> certainly should be tagged and arguably renders should show it.  But I
> don't think it's necessary that it control highway=trunk.   I see the
> proposal basically says that near cities, if it isn't the old defintion
> physically, it shouldn't be trunk, but trunk can be used for physically
> lesser roads that are still a big deal.  US 20 in Wyoming might be a
> good example.   So I like that part of the proposal.
>
> What's missing is how to use secondary and tertiary.
>
> We used to have a notion that in MA, all state routes were at least
> secondary.   I think that continues to make sense in most cases but I
> don't know how that lines up with the labeling below.
>
>> While developing these guidelines, we discovered that the MassGIS
>> "functional classifications" mapped quite nicely to functional highway
>> classifications, however, the "trunk" classification was under-used
>> compared to its place in the hierarchy.  This is likely the result of a
>> 9-year old MassGIS road classification mapping which did not map anything
>> to trunk.  On review of the current mappings, we believe that the following
>> mappings make sense:
>>
>> F_Class 2 -> highway=trunk
>> F_Class 3 -> highway=primary
>> F_Class 5 -> highway=secondary
> and what about tertiary/unclassified?
>
>> In many cases, the mappings above are already implemented in the map, and
>> some would need to be changed.  There are a small number of outliers to
>> this mapping that we may want to consider documenting as exceptions, such
>> as local routes through Fitchburg and in the Plymouth area that are
>> probably more appropriately mapped lower than trunk.
> I wonder how much of that is a bug in the MassGIS data.   (I think
> really this is MassDOT data made available via MassGIS.)
>
>> In order to "try before you buy", we've stood up a temporary prototype
>> render[4] to demonstrate what the regional road network would look like if
>> we adopted these changes in highway classification.  This stripped-down
>> render shows only roads, boundaries, and city names, and is rigged to
>> suppress rendering of primary and below until higher zooms, so you can
>> better see the motorway/trunk road network.
> When  I look at this, I see
>
>> The prototype render has implemented highway reclassifications for four New
>> England states only: NH, VT, MA, and RI.  In addition, Washington State has
>> also been reclassified in this prototype.  Note that these changes are ONLY
>> in this prototype and not in the live map at osm.org, and you can compare
>> the two maps side by side to see the difference.
>>
>> [4] http://74.97.52.189:6789/openstreetmap-carto/#8/41.965/-71.084
> I went to look near me, and the zoom 8/9 look good.  The road from
> Gardner to Keene NH being trunk is interesting as I don't think of that,
> but I can easily believe that it's a big deal at the 50 km scale, an
> indeed I have personally used it to drive to mid Vermont.  So that seems
> positive.
>
> At zoom 10 I see primary pop in, and much of that is ok but it seems
> kind of strange.   Near Marlboro, the bit about the Rt 85 connector and
> 85 up to 62 and west beyond 495 qualifying but not 62 to Bedford doesn't
> make sense.
>
> Going to zoom 11, I don't see 117 and 62 appear, and they should.
> Certainly these should be secondary; they are very important when
> driving to 5 towns away, but not important when driving from Boston to
> Worcester.
>
> I think either the illustration doesn't show what I want to see, or I am
> misunderstanding it.  I wonder if it's possible to show all roads with
> proposed changes, with the scale-dependent visibilty that the default
> scale now has?
>
> Or perhaps this is only meant to show what counts as primary, and the
> rest is to be figured out?  If so, I don't mean to complain about it.
>
> My big comment is that the proposal doesn't address
> tertiary/unclassified.  Two separate thoughts:
>
>    1) I've long thought that there should be an idea, which really is
>    aligned well with what you are proposing, that e.g. tertiary should
>    mean something like "tertiary is a road thought of as 'the way from
>    here to there' relative to two places (defined broadly) that have
>    about 10000 people each".  Or maybe some smaller number, or maybe that
>    number floats with density.  Basically in MA, roads that are the main
>    paths between towns, at the Central Mass town scale.
>
>    2) In the UK, they have this "Unclassified" notion.  That never made
>    sense to me until I drove there.  Their A/B/C are really functional
>    classifications; some A roads are like small US Highways (everything's
>    narrow but I'll ignore that).  By the time you get to C, they are very
>    minor.  I really remember only one U road, and it went from a very
>    small town through a tiny village (cows in the road almost) back to
>    the main road.  The main road into to the village was a C.  The U road
>    was one lane and you'd have to back up to a passing place if you met
>    another car -- but we didn't.  Still, it had a number.  (I can't find
>    this now).
>
>    Here, we sort of have "if it doesn't merit tertiary or higher, call it
>    residential if it has houses, and unclassified if not", and that
>    doesn't really make sense.  The UK "unclassified" is really a formal
>    designation and probably should have been "quartiary".  In the US,
>    whether roads have houses is kind of random and not all that
>    correlated.
>
>    So I tend to want to get rid of highway=residential, replace it with
>    highway=local (meaning any legal road that you don't use to get from
>    here to there, only to get to a particular place that is part of
>    here), and use highway=unclassified from "how to get from one part to
>    10kish-town to another part, or perhaps "how to get from a 1k place to
>    a different 1k place".  Once arriving that that, given avoiding churn,
>    I want to just drop the "houses" part of residential, and say that
>    highway=residential means what I said about above highway=local.
>
>> Would the Massachusetts mapping community support adopting this MassGIS
>> functional class mapping, either with or without documented exceptions?
>> For anyone that wants to get involved with this effort more deeply,
>> collaboration is welcome, and we continue to discuss and work out the kinks
>> on Slack, in channel #local-us-northeast .
> I think this is heading to something I could support pretty strongly.
> Hopefully my comments made sense.
>
> (It's unfortuante that this is on Slack; I don't think open data
> projects should use proprietary platforms.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us-massachusetts mailing list
> Talk-us-massachusetts at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us-massachusetts

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us-massachusetts/attachments/20210514/f7f4038a/attachment.htm>