[Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)
richiekennedy56 at gmail.com
richiekennedy56 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 6 16:49:03 UTC 2015
I am the editor in question.
The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do not necessarily agree.
However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously connects mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just re-classed as trunk a few days ago) connects larger towns and cities.
I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS:
Interstate: Motorway
Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk
Principal Arterial: Trunk/Primary [1]
Minor Arterial: Primary
Major Collector: Secondary/Tertiary
Minor Collector: Tertiary
[1] In rural areas, “Other Freeway and Expressway” is a subset of “Principal Arterial,” and may be marked on official state maps as the latter. If a roadway is fully controlled access, the Motorway tag should be used.
For urban areas, I would not make any major changes:
Interstate: Motorway
Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk
Principal Arterial: Primary
Minor Arterial: Secondary
Major Collector/Minor Collector: Tertiary
Generally, I have noticed that many urban roads will “drop class” when they transition into rural roads. Under the guidance above, most of these roadways will maintain a consistent type in OSM.
As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is frowned upon to tag for a routing engine. I would be happy to review the existing roadways myself to determine if they should be downgraded per any updated guidance; however, a bulk revert or manual cleanup without updated guidance will also be frowned upon.
From: Richard Fairhurst
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2015 10:43 AM
To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list
Richard Welty wrote:
> i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for
> informational purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification.
In the UK we use the designation= tag to record official classifications
which might not be reflected in the highway type - I'd commend it.
Toby Murray wrote:
> This user has also upgraded a lot of unpaved county roads in
> eastern Kansas to secondary because of HFCS which also strikes
> me as wrong. You can clearly see where he has done this at
> zoom level 9 [6].
Ye gods. That's horrid, and breaks every single car and bicycle router in
existence. Are those changesets cleanly revertable, or do we need a manual
fixup?
Richard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150906/cb91fbb9/attachment.html>
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list