[OSM-talk] Highway=trunk : harmonization between countries ?

djakk djakk djakk.djakk at gmail.com
Sun Aug 27 17:15:16 UTC 2017


>
> If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to
> downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2,
> not "Trunk 2".  In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably
> primary.


yes, that's what I want.


Perhaps you should make your own render, and
> submit change proposals to the standard style.  A possibility might be
> coloring roads by ref and hence legal designation, not highway tag, and
> then to draw their width/weight based on physical characteristics.  If
> that's useful, and I think it might be, maybe people will adopt it.


I already got this idea, but I won't rely on the ref and the legal
designation (it may be well done in the UK and in the US, it is not the
case in France), I need a local user-defined value for the importance of an
road : the key "highway" as used in Japan or UK, with trunk as
super-primary, or a new key "importance" which almost duplicates the
highway value (trunk or super_primary, primary, secondary, tertiary,
quaternary, local)
Maybe I should make a test map and come back later :)


djakk

2017-08-24 2:09 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>:

>
> djakk djakk <djakk.djakk at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > The thing is, I'm annoyed when there is a primary in the middle of a
> trunk
> > road (example : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/44.3996/-70.9439)
>
> I haven't been there, but the notion that the road is fundamentally
> different in the primary section is totally sensible and likely to be
> true.
>
> > whereas in the U.K. this does not exist ... tagging rules should be as
> > generic as possible, should not they ?
>
> In an alternate universe, where tags were developed from the ground up
> by committee and vetted against each country's reality, before any
> mapping was done, perhaps.  But that's not what OSM is, for better or
> for worse.  There was a scheme that really made sense in the UK, and
> it's been adapted.
>
> In the US (are you in the US?), there isn't any formal notion of trunk.
> There are US highways, which were agreed long ago to map to primary, and
> there are Interstates, which were agreed to map to motorway.  This
> mapping is arguably sensible.
>
> My impreession is that in the UK, there were A/B/C/U, and then later M
> were created, and I'm not sure when trunk happened.
>
> In the US there were US and state highways, and then later I-.   We
> don't have a naming system for trunk.   So therefore, we have adapted
> high-grade physical to mean a better type of primary.  And basically
> almost everybody is OK with this.
>
> If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to
> downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2,
> not "Trunk 2".  In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably
> primary.
>
> The real problem is not that trunk means what it does.  It's that
> renderers and perhaps routers focus on the main highway tag, and make
> results you don't like.  Perhaps you should make your own render, and
> submit change proposals to the standard style.  A possibility might be
> coloring roads by ref and hence legal designation, not highway tag, and
> then to draw their width/weight based on physical characteristics.  If
> that's useful, and I think it might be, maybe people will adopt it.
>
> But changing the definition of trunk because you don't like the
> rendering output is even worse than tagging for the renderer - it's
> meta-tagging for the renderer :-)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20170827/f155f30f/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list