[Talk-us] Trunk

Evin Fairchild evindfair at gmail.com
Sat Oct 14 19:47:36 UTC 2017

Still don't agree about osmand making trunks look like a divided highway/
expressway but whatever. Either way, if we tag only divided highways as
trunk just because a certain renderer makes trunk roads look like divided
highways (BTW, this is a better term to use here than expressway because it
causes less confusion), that actually is a textbook example of tagging for
the renderer.

-Evin (compdude)

On Oct 14, 2017 10:57 AM, "Bradley White" <theangrytomato at gmail.com> wrote:

> I use Osmand frequently; the point of the cased-line style of the
> trunk & motorway tags is, agreeing with Paul here, to show some degree
> of access control. This is in-line with many paper road atlases,
> especially older ones. My point was that third-party applications
> choosing to use this style is their own pejorative, and we should not
> be basing tagging definitions on how third-party apps use the data. In
> regard to the trunk debate, I understand and fully respect Paul's
> position, but I personally disagree. I'm hoping the debate here will
> encourage the US OSM community in getting closer to an agreeable
> definition for trunk.
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > To add onto what Bradley was saying about third-party applications, I
> just
> > want to add that I've done some fact-checking about a claim that Paul
> made
> > in a previous email about how Osmand renders trunks under the assumption
> > that they are expressways (to be clear, by this I mean divided highways
> w/
> > at-grade intersections). After some fact-checking, this claim receives a
> > truth rating of completely FALSE.
> >
> > Anyway, I looked at how Osmand renders motorways versus trunk and I don't
> > know how it is that you, Paul, can say that trunk is assumed to be like
> an
> > expressway  in Osmand's render. That is simply not true. The motorway in
> > Osmand, for those who are unfamiliar, is red with a thin blue outline
> around
> > it, whereas trunk is just an orange-red line without any other color
> > outlining it. This makes it look more like a single-carriageway road and
> > less like an expressway like Paul falsely claims. All it looks like is a
> > road that is of higher-importance than primary, and does NOT at all look
> > like it could be an expressway. Usually, when maps show a divided
> highway w/
> > at-grade intersections, it looks similar to a freeway, but a different
> > color, whereas an undivided two-lane road typically looks nothing like an
> > expressway or freeway. Thus, it is complete and utter lie to say that
> Osmand
> > makes the assumption that trunk roads are expressways. I don't know how
> > mkgmap shows trunk vs. motorway since I don't have a Garmin and thus
> cannot
> > test it out, but I don't trust that Paul is telling the truth here
> either.
> >
> > It's important to make truthful claims here, Paul; from now on, I will
> have
> > a VERY difficult time trusting anything you say. I know what I brought up
> > was kind of a side point, but I think it's important to call out BS when
> I
> > see it.
> >
> > -Evin (compdude)
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Bradley White <
> theangrytomato at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > The concept of expressway and freeway are reasonably well known
> >> > concepts;
> >> > it makes a lot of sense to map trunk and motorway to those concepts.
> >>
> >> I agree with freeways but not with expressways. I have no data to back
> >> this claim up, but I'm fairly convinced that, while the average
> >> citizen could easily differentiate between "freeway" and "not
> >> freeway", they would be hard pressed to do the same with an
> >> expressway. Anecdotal, but even when I spent time in the Santa Clara
> >> area which has a robust expressway system, I never heard a single
> >> person say "and then get on the expressway...", or even the word
> >> 'expressway' mentioned outside of it being the suffix of a road name.
> >> You're right that it's not a terribly difficult concept to understand
> >> and thus map, but I disagree that it's an important concept in
> >> explaining the road hierarchy in the US, so much so that we can equate
> >> an entire class of importance with them. We have a robust, clearly
> >> signposted freeway network in the US. We do not have the same with
> >> expressways. Roads tend to go in and out of "expressway" qualification
> >> depending on context, traffic levels of connecting roads, and highway
> >> budget & design policy. A road being built as an expressway is
> >> suggestive of its importance at best, and certainly not indicative.
> >>
> >> Edmonton has many roads around the east and west of the downtown area
> >> that are clearly built as expressways. However, they are only tagged
> >> secondary because, fundamentally, you only really need to use them to
> >> get around the immediate vicinity. Despite being very high quality
> >> roads, they aren't all that important in the grand scheme. I can point
> >> to many examples of urban roads that likely meet an expressway
> >> definition in my current home city of Reno, including one under
> >> construction. It would be absurd to me to tag them as being second in
> >> importance only to motorways just because they are well-built roads,
> >> because they're unimportant outside of getting around the relatively
> >> small Reno-Sparks metropolitan area.
> >>
> >> The "highway" key is about importance. The only category we have
> >> full-stop made equivalent with a type of road design is "motorway".
> >> From trunk on down, it is just different grades of importance. These
> >> are how the definitions are listed on the 'Key:highway' page, which I
> >> consider to be definitive. The fact that the words "trunk", "primary",
> >> "secondary", ... are used is an artifact of the UK roots of OSM. Had
> >> this project started in the US, the keys would probably be "freeway",
> >> "principal_artery", "major_artery", "minor_artery", "major_collector",
> >> ... leaving UK users scratching their heads trying to figure out how
> >> to adapt these definitions to their own network. In countries with
> >> signposted expressway systems, it is meaningful in understanding the
> >> road network to equate trunk with expressway, so they do that. I don't
> >> think doing the same is meaningful in the U.S. given how much
> >> variability and inconsistency there is with how and where expressways
> >> are constructed.
> >>
> >> > Even a lot of renderers make this same assumption:  mkgmap maps trunk
> to
> >> > Garmin's concept of expressway and motorway to freeway.  Osmand,
> easily
> >> > the
> >> > most popular data consumer for OpenStreetMap, makes the same
> assumption
> >> > (to
> >> > the point that most of it's map painting styles, the only
> >> > differentiation
> >> > between trunk and motorway is a color pallette shift).  It really
> >> > wouldn't
> >> > hurt the US community to have a "come to Jesus" moment on this,
> >> > particularly when using the MUTCD definitions for expressway and
> freeway
> >> > as
> >> > qualifiers for trunk and freeway, makes this relatively easy.  The
> >> > corollary to "don't tag for the renderer" is "don't break the
> renderer".
> >> > Highways without access control being excluded from trunk or motorway
> >> > isn't
> >> > an intrinsically bad assumption to make.  Especially if we come to
> >> > agreement on that, we can start having a productive talk on how to
> make
> >> > carto not suck for Americans without breaking it for everyone else.
> >>
> >> I'm really not that concerned with how third-party applications decide
> >> to paint their roads. It's up to them to work with the data we
> >> provide, not the other way around. If it is important to Garmin or
> >> other applications to translate expressways, this can usually be
> >> deduced from other tags, or we can trivially add an "expressway=" tag.
> >> I also disagree that the carto in the US is bad, other than our
> >> insistence that two-lane are categorically not trunk leaving
> >> meaningless splatters of orange around the map at low zoom.
> >>
> >> Also, apologies ahead of time if I keep breaking the archive
> >> hierarchy, I'm not totally familiar with how to drive a mailing list
> >> and I have yet to find a guide online that explains how.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Talk-us mailing list
> >> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> >
> >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20171014/519683e8/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list