[Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway

[Adam Franco]

I'm not saying that the surface junction itself would still be motorway (or
even the area of reduced speed approaching it), but once one is far enough
beyond those limiting features and the speeds and other aspects are the
same as the rest of the motorway, the roadway is functionally a motorway. I
think the issue is that you take the word "include" to mean any segment
possibly touching a surface junction, at any distance from that junction.
It seems that most of the rest of us feel that there is some distance (e.g.
over the horizon, miles away, before a speed reduction, etc) where junction
is far enough off that it is separate from the character of the roadway one
is on.

I've never been to OK and don't know your roadway in question well enough
to weigh in on that specific case, but I would oppose a rule that said that
motorways can never continue to the position where the road character
changes (e.g. signage, speed reduction) leading to a final surface
intersection.

On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 5:03 PM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> The commonly accepted definition of freeways in the US excludes surface
> junctions, whereas expressways (trunks) does include intersections.  I
> honestly am surprised a group of roadgeeks isn't more attuned to this
> distinction.
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 3:15 PM Adam Franco <adamfranco at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 1:36 AM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2018 at 12:30 AM Bryan Housel <bhousel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do understand your point, but a dozen or so people on talk-us and the
>>>> six or so people on that changeset 64919426
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, 1 person, an AA roads troll and like 5 sockpuppets.  There's also
>>> a number of people in this thread that do agree with me.
>>>
>>>
>>>> discussion all disagree with you.  Is there nothing that would make you
>>>> reconsider?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Get the commonly used definition of a freeway changed to include
>>> intersections.  Good luck!
>>>
>>
>> Since you are asking for more declaration of support/opposition, I'm a
>> relatively disinterested-in-motorways mapper that has been following along
>> with this thread. Paul, I think your read of a motorway definition is
>> overly rigid and I agree with Richie, Bryan, and the others that a motorway
>> classification may continue beyond the last interchange.
>>
>> If one is traveling past the last interchange one may be traveling in a
>> "motorway zone" where high speeds, grade separation of crossing roads, dual
>> carriageway, etc all continue to exist. As Richie pointed out, there will
>> be some place where "caution freeway ends", "intersection ahead" or slowing
>> speed limit signage indicates a transition out of the motorway zone to
>> something else. That seems like a vastly more appropriate place to change
>> the tagging from motorway to trunk/primary. Choosing the point of the last
>> interchange doesn't make sense as there may be many miles on both sides of
>> the last interchange where the roadway is functionally the same -- where
>> standing and looking at the road it shows all of the characteristics of a
>> motorway. It is confusing to think that an at-grade intersection far over
>> the horizon would force a long final segment of road to change
>> classification.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181202/6324fa08/attachment-0001.html>