[Talk-us] Trunk

Evin Fairchild evindfair at gmail.com
Sun Oct 15 02:43:36 UTC 2017

On Oct 14, 2017 5:41 PM, "Paul Johnson" <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 14, 2017 4:25 PM, "Paul Johnson" <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Oct 14, 2017 2:04 PM, "Wolfgang Zenker" <wolfgang at lyxys.ka.sub.org>
>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> it looks to me that this discussion is going in circles, not forward
>> at the moment. IMHO it does not make a lot of sense to argue what might
>> be the true meaning of "trunk". Instead, we should concentrate on what
>> it should mean, document this meaning if we can agree on one and don't
>> worry to much about what other maps or different parts of the world
>> think a "trunk" is.
>> Yeah, the whole reason why this discussion hasn't resulted in a consensus
>> for 7+ years is because people have dug in their heels so much and said
>> "trunk roads can only be divided highways, no its, ands, or buts." I
>> support what is written on the wiki that says that it is the second most
>> important road after motorway. I haven't seen a single compelling reason to
>> believe that trunk should only apply to divided highways. You can still
>> tell whether a trunk is divided at low zooms based on how thick the line is.
> I'm OK with single carriageway trunks, if they're controlled access, like,
> say, the Chickasaw Turnpike, and similarly constructed roads.  The single
> carriageway parts of US 395 or US 97 in eastern Oregon, US 400 in Kansas or
> US 75 in Oklahoma, though?  They're all solid primaries.
> You actually think that US 97, the main artery thru Central Oregon that
> passes thru the Bend area which has a 75K population and a metro population
> of 100K shouldn't be connected to the outside world with a trunk road?

Yes.  Because for the majority of that length that isn't between US 20 and
County Road 40 is, for all practical purposes, the same generic two lane,
shoulderless ribbon of pavement that pretty much any two lane Texas FM or
RM road, or pretty much any other similar road in the American west.
Primary is more than ample for such a road.

That's not accurate to compare a US highway to some podunk FM/RM road out
in the middle of nowhere in Texas. US 97 has way more traffic and very
deserving of its trunk road designation. Most US highways are, except in
places where they parallel an interstate or other freeway. BTW, this is
what is written on the wiki.

>> The definition of "trunk" that I have used so far: A highway that is of
>> the same network importance as a primary, but specifically constructed
>> for fast traffic.
>> I like this definition. There are quite a few two lane roads that are
>> built for speed, but may still have some at grade intersections.
> There's still a fundamental difference between a controlled or limited
> access route that isn't a freeway, and a two lane road without hard
> shoulders that has a 70 mph speed limit.
> Yeah, true. It's probably a more subjective definition. I think we ought
> to set a population of a city that should be connected to other places by
> trunk roads.

Or, map it cleanly to limited access expressways and super2s.  I really
think people are trying to overthink this a bit; being a little less
subjective isn't necessarily a bad thing.

No, just no. I don't like looking at the US at a low zoom and seeing
disjointed bits of trunk that aren't connected to anything. Makes the US
map look bad.

-Evin (compdude)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20171014/e29b818f/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list