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

Fri Jan 28 18:52:33 UTC 2022

Rhode Island DOT also disagrees with Paul's take.  For the few cases we
have, signage indicating the end of the freeway is always aligned to the
first at-grade intersection, not the final grade-separated interchange.
Below is a link to Google StreetView at the end of the RI-138 freeway in
Newport, RI.  1000 feet before the freeway ends at an at-grade traffic
signal there's a giant yellow sign that says "FREEWAY ENDS 1000 FT".

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.5056105,-71.3160112,3a,75y,46.43h,89.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svMMo1rtGsiVgAKPFg811Xw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 1:31 PM Eric Patrick <txemt1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don’t understand Paul’s thinking on this. Florida Turnpike (southern
> end) & GA-400 (northern end) both end/ start at AGCs where the first actual
> on/off ramp isn’t for a few miles or so. 400 is restricted to only getting
> on/off from the AGC (with a red light). Wurzbach Pkwy in San Antonio is the
> same.
>
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 13:24 Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul is going to disagree with me on this, but per standard practice, I'd
>> tag it as motorway up to the first at grade intersection, as that is the
>> first point where anyone driving thru there will notice that they're no
>> longer on a freeway if they're driving north on US 61.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 10:10 AM Ian Nicholson <ian at binaryash.net> wrote:
>>
>>> So as someone who’s not extremely versed on this: if we assume that
>>> motorways should not end at at-grade intersections, how should US-61 be
>>> tagged where it intersects with I-90 at Dakota (this is where I-90 turns
>>> away from the Mississippi and heads west in the south half of Winona
>>> County)?
>>> 61 has on/off ramps several hundred feet north of the split, but about a
>>> half mile to mile north of the ramps there is an at-grade driveway to the
>>> southbound lane and about a half mile north of that there is a turn lane
>>> where the northbound lane can access a frontage road.
>>> Apologies I realize this is basic but I’ve just had a difficult time
>>> getting my head around these tags.
>>>
>>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive any errors in my spelling or
>>> grammar.
>>>
>>> On Jan 28, 2022, at 11:47, Bob Gambrel <rjgambrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220128/b3c60177/attachment-0001.htm>