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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"As it stands, I will continue to use 'trunk' on any section of highway
that is somewhere between a freeway and a conventional 2-lane highway
per US consensus. Hopefully one of these days consensus will shift."

It sounds like there isn't a consensus, per comments on Hwy 101: "I
did this a year or two ago, then changed it back following the
previous time this discussion came up last year. Someone else has
recently changed it back to trunk in its entirety as you describe".

Sound like we don't have a consensus, which isn't surprising. The USA
has more similarities to Europe as a whole, considering the diversity
of environments and different legal systems and traditions between
states, especially if we remember Alaska and Hawaii.

I live in Indonesia currently, and here the "national roads" are
supposed to be tagged as highway=trunk. In Java they are all pretty
major highways, usually 4 lanes, though not limited-access. Sometimes
they are just 2 lanes. But here in eastern Indonesia, many of the
trunk roads are not yet paved.

That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska
the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a
reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes
sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German
standards.

On 8/29/19, Bradley White <theangrytomato at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 did this a year or two ago, then changed it back following the
> previous time this discussion came up last year. Someone else has
> recently changed it back to trunk in its entirety as you describe (as
> well as US 395, CA 70); I explained in a changeset comment that the
> "major intercity highway where no motorway exists" definition (per
> Highway:International_equivalence) is contentious and not commonly
> used, but that I have no plans on reverting their changes.
>
> Caltrans doesn't appear to have "divided" as a requirement for an
> expressway build, or even necessarily a freeway (See:(California)
> State Highway Map 2005; David Rumsey Map Collection) - these terms are
> used to describe the level of access control on a given highway. US
> 101 through Redwood Ntl Park is signed with "Freeway Entrance" and is
> fully access controlled, but is an undivided 4-lane road. Many 2-lane,
> undivided roads are considered expressways in California, for example:
>
> - Vasco Road connecting Antioch & Livermore
> - Portions of CA 4 west of Angels Camp
> - CA 108 east of Sonora (fully access controlled 2-lane road)
>
> Once you know what to look for - reduced access to adjacent
> properties, smoothed road geometry (esp. when bypassing old highways),
> hard shoulders, usually 65 mph - they aren't too hard to differentiate
> from conventional 2-lane highways with no access control. Where these
> are obvious I generally tag them as trunk roads as opposed to primary.
> Specifically in the case of CA 108, I reject that a fully access
> controlled two-lane road is anything less than a trunk, if we have
> decided to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway'. California doesn't use
> AASHTO definitions so I won't either.
>
> Reno, NV has a couple urban arteries that straddle the divide between
> trunk and primary (specifically: McCarran Blvd/NV 659, Pyramid Hwy/NV
> 445 north of McCarran, Veterans Pkwy, foothills portion of Mt. Rose
> Hwy/NV 431). These roads carry traffic at speeds higher than other
> nearby arteries (45-55 mph as opposed to 40 mph). They are built to
> the highest level of access control specified by Washoe RTC -
> generally no direct access to properties, except for retail/commercial
> areas (where access is quite frequent), or rural areas where no other
> roads provide access to properties. They range from undivided w/
> center turn lane to divided with concrete jersey barriers & headlight
> blinders (similar to a freeway). The majority of these roadways have
> bike lanes, and many have sidewalks. They are quite similar to San
> Jose's expressway system, except for a lack of grade-separated
> interchanges. Are these primary, or trunk? I don't really know. They
> currently sit at an awkward mix of trunk and primary depending on how
> definitively myself and others think they are "expressways" or not.
>
> I don't deny that "divided highway with partial control of access" is
> a rigorous definition, with which it is certainly possible to tag
> unambiguously with. I just question whether it is a good choice in the
> US to use 'trunk' to mean 'expressway' in the same way that 'motorway'
> means 'freeway', when the US has a formal freeway system, but lacks a
> formal expressway system. Most other countries that also lack a formal
> expressway system do not use the trunk/expressway definition (UK,
> Canada, etc). In my area, sticking strictly to "divided highway with
> partial control of access" means very few highways at all will see
> 'trunk' tagging. Certainly, this reflects what's on the ground here if
> we use this definition - but why use a definition that either has to
> be used ambiguously or seldom at all?
>
> I support orthogonalizing expressways & trunk by using
> 'expressway=yes/no' for access control (maybe
> access_control=full/partial/no?), 'highway=trunk' to mean non-freeway
> road with national-level importance, and using 'oneway' to denote
> whether a highway is divided or not. Then let rendering decide how to
> draw the road from there. Want to see formal expressways drawn
> separately? 'Expressway=yes' & 'oneway=yes'. Want a more general view
> of the most important US highways? 'Highway=trunk'.
>
> As it stands, I will continue to use 'trunk' on any section of highway
> that is somewhere between a freeway and a conventional 2-lane highway
> per US consensus. Hopefully one of these days consensus will shift.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>