[Talk-us] Historic 66 as highway=trunk in OK

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I checked and motorroad=yes in used in Spain for "Autovias" which are
like expressways, but they usually allow bicycles, just like many
expressways in the USA.

So the idea that motorroads prohibit bicycles and pedestrians is more
specific to France, Germany and some other countries, while in other
places the tag is more like the USA-specific expressway=* - a divided
highway with somewhat limited access, higher speeds, prioritizing
motor vehicle travel but not necessarily prohibiting bikes.

> I think it'd honestly be easier to get everyone to agree that it's time for lanes=* to include all lanes, not just lanes of a minimum width accessible to a pretty narrow selection of vehicles...

I don't quite understand this comment. Is it about bike lanes?

Are we sure that highway=trunk actually has a clear definition in
North America? It seems to be used differently in several places I've
checked; eg. California vs East Coast vs North Dakota.

On 8/29/19, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:05 PM Joseph Eisenberg
> <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd
>> like to address the use of highway=trunk in general.
>>
>> I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and
>> expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=,
>> maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than using
>> highway=trunk for this.
>>
>
> Ideally I'd prefer we started using tags that actually reflect what people
> call things in this country and have a lookup table on the wiki someplace
> for national equivalence, ie, highway=expressway, highway=freeway, etc,
> since the US tends to have more levels and nuance than the relatively easy
> "A/B/C/M/U" grading the British have officially that carries over there.
> We don't really have motorroad as a well defined thing here, either, even
> about 3/5ths of the states allow pedestrians and bicycles on most
> freeways.  Using trunks for expressways does give a pretty well defined
> expectation of what you're going to be experiencing as it's used now.
>
> Like the distinctions between primary/secondary/tertiary, trunk was
>> originally intended to describe the role of a road in the network.
>> While most trunk highways are divided and have more than 1 lane in
>> each direction in densely-populated areas, it's quite normal for to
>> have narrower roads as the main route between 2 cities, in
>> sparsely-populated parts of the country.
>>
>
> Well, literally the official designation of the highway, before the project
> jumped outside the UK.
>
>
>> For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g.
>> Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now
>> only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to
>> upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic
>> leaves 101 and heads to I-5, at Crescent City.
>>
>
> I'm not sure that's really worth revisiting so much; seems for the US as we
> have it now.  NE2 nationally torque-tagged everything in network=US:US as
> trunk and that seems to have broken the already established trunk.
>
>
>> The segments that are divided and wider can be tagged expressway=yes,
>> lanes=4, maxspeed=, etc, so if people want to render these differently
>> they can (routers are probably more interested in the number of
>> intersections, traffic signals, lanes, maxspeed, and surface, so the
>> expressway=* tag isn't really needed).
>>
>
> I think it'd honestly be easier to get everyone to agree that it's time for
> lanes=* to include all lanes, not just lanes of a minimum width accessible
> to a pretty narrow selection of vehicles than redefine highway=trunk in
> North America at this point.  Certainly a lot less subjective.
>