[Talk-us] Announcing progress: Minnesota Highway classification project publishes first guidance

[Bob Gambrel]

Thanks Paul. I will post your thoughts. Thanks again for your insight

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 11:04 AM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:43 AM Bob Gambrel <rjgambrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I really want to be clear about your position so I do not misstate it in
>> the channel. I know you have already covered it but if I try to piece it
>> together from the thread I might get it wrong. Am stating what I think your
>> position is. Let me know if I got it right ...
>>
>> 1) Barring exceptional edge cases ...
>> 2) A motorway should not end/start at an at grade intersection
>> 3) A motorway should start/end  where a ramp touches the carriageway
>>
>> I cannot remember in the long thread whether you weighed in about the
>> length of a motorway island. Following are questions about that. The slack
>> discussion that Evin initiated is more about item (a) below and I want to
>> make sure your thoughts enter that discussion ...
>>
>> a) Do you believe there is a minimum number of (non at-grade)
>> interchanges there should be before we classify something as a motorway?
>> For example, is a one interchange motorway island ok?
>> b) Do you have any particular concerns about the minimum length of a
>> motorway island?
>>
>
> It's a little hard to quantify, but generally speaking I'm not inclined to
> step it up for just one exit, even on long sections, mostly because people
> expect freeways to be fully controlled, without at-grade access, and at
> least two carriageways.  This mostly leaves "places with a grade-separated
> junction" as the closest handy transition point.  I'm generally hesitant
> about setting something to motorway if it's not a fairly clear case of
> motorway.  Short islands of motorway often fall into the category of
> mapping the DOT's not-fully-realized aspirations for a freeway, in which
> case it may be useful to ask if "proposed=motorway" and "expressway=yes" in
> addition to a lower highway value is highly likely to be more closely
> accurate.  I don't have a MN example offhand but being able to quickly
> distinguish the difference could mean, in PA for example, consumers taking
> I 76 instead of the immediately adjacent and not-quite-a-freeway US 212
> when routing for shortest time, absent all other tags.
>
> I hope you don't think I am being picky here. I really want to get your
>> thoughts into the discussion, if you don't join it yourself.
>>
>
> You're fine.
>
>
>> To recap the current guidlines in Minn: motorways islands have no minimum
>> length requirement, can consist of as few as a single interchange, and end
>> at the first at-grade intersection.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 9:14 AM Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 8:44 AM Bob Gambrel <rjgambrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think we are near the end of this talk-us thread. Both Evin and Paul
>>>> have provided input along the way and I have responded as well. A few
>>>> others added insight as well. As a result of this there is a newly opened
>>>> discussion the the Slack #local-minnesota channel addressing this issue.
>>>> Evin has initiated the discussion there. Other active
>>>> highway-classification mappers are joining that discussion. Others who have
>>>> joined this talk-us discussion are on Slack and are aware of the
>>>> #local-minnesota channel so can participate as they see fit in that
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Paul: I want to make sure your views are discussed there. If you want
>>>> to join that discussion please do. If not can you summarize your bottom
>>>> line opinions about what the wiki says now that you disagree with. You can
>>>> provide them here or within the wiki discussion page. I am asking this now
>>>> because it is possible that your views have changed since the beginning of
>>>> the thread. If you post your views here I will transcribe them to Slack so
>>>> the others can know what they are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think I already covered it.  Only significant concern being the
>>> motorway part.  Barring some truly exceptional edge cases, I don't think we
>>> should be hinting to consumers to expect a freeway heading into an at-grade
>>> intersection, particularly when such a situation is something I think
>>> everyone would expect to happen on an expressway.
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20220128/00587230/attachment.htm>