Martijn van Exel
m at rtijn.org
Mon Oct 16 04:12:59 UTC 2017
Okay folks. Coming back from not even 48 hours camping and this thread has
exploded. I don't think it benefits anyone to continue in this way.
Valuable insights get lost in the sheer volume of email; arguments are
I am dedicating the next Many Mappy Minutes (our monthly-ish online
hangout) to discuss road classification. I proposed November 15 5:30 PT in
an earlier email to this group. I invite you all to join then.
In the mean time, if you would like to have a more interactive discussion,
please join IRC or Slack and continue the discussion there.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Nathan Mills <nathan at nwacg.net> wrote:
> In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag
> importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary.
> Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always
> been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to use it
> more like motorway but for divided highways and people who want it to mean
> more primary than primary.
> That's why we're still taking about it now, long after the usage of other
> highway tag values has long been settled. The closest thing to a decision
> that was ever made was NE2's unilateral mass edit, some of which has been
> reverted, some of which hasn't. Without consensus that the tagging is wrong
> and not just the unilateral decision, I'm not going to go out of my way to
> revert his trunk changes on ways I'm not otherwise editing large portions
> of. It's not a nice thing to do. It's got nothing to do with thinking that
> things should be that way and everything to do with not being a jackass who
> unilaterally imposes their will on the whole community.
> On October 15, 2017 1:40:16 AM EDT, Bradley White <
> theangrytomato at gmail.com> wrote:
>> If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag
>> fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground,
>> why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag
>> altogether, and let the renders handle it with their own algorithms?
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:19 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>>>> The US is pretty well known for overbuilding highways. Are we trying to
>>>> document how things are on the ground or how things are actually
>>>> connected? If we're going for the former, then yeah, only Bend Parkway and
>>>> a brief streak through Klamath Falls is a trunk part of US 97. If we're
>>>> going for the latter, then go ahead with NE2's idea and smash almost
>>>> everything into trunk.
>>> Keep hitting send too soon. Personally, I find what's on the ground to be
>>> more useful than the connections. Game theory and any routing engine can
>>> figure out the connections. But knowing what's a stupid rural road with an
>>> overly generous speed limit and what's almost but not quite a freeway is
>>> more useful. If I'm driving a big rig going from southwestern Canada or
>>> Alaska to somewhere in Nevada, I don't give two shakes what some toolbag
>>> things is the most prominent road. I care more about what *actually is a
>>> big road*. Calling a two leg segment of US 97 30km outside of East
>>> Butthump, Oregon a trunk is a great disservice when it's basically on par
>>> with County Road Number Who Even Cares tracing off to Outer
>>> Smalltownsville, other than the fact that it goes through. Calling it a
>>> trunk when it's not is going to set an unreasonably high expectation for
>>> what is otherwise an overtravelled, glorified two digit National Forest
>>> route through the east Cascades frontier. Primary is definitely ample for
>>> that road, even if you're going a more obscure minor haul route like Salem
>>> to Reno.
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us