Clarification unclassified vs residential

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
183 messages Options
1234567 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Sergio Manzi

+1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (https://xkcd.com/927/)

BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the Italian Traffic Code (Codice della Strada) are.

There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification (something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken) instead of a "descriptive classification".

But other concerns are emerging too (at least in my head!), like the administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (state, region, province, municipality, private) and ad-hoc values as input for the router (speed limits, traffic density, etc. *OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  ).

Keep on going!

Cheers,

Sergio



On 2019-02-25 22:10, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))


It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

However, some of the stuff on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Warin
On 26/02/19 10:59, Sergio Manzi wrote:

+1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (https://xkcd.com/927/)

BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the Italian Traffic Code (Codice della Strada) are.

There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification (something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken) instead of a "descriptive classification".

Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of use to fit others classifications to.

But other concerns are emerging too (at least in my head!), like the administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (state, region, province, municipality, private)

Use operator=* ???

and ad-hoc values as input for the router (speed limits, traffic density, etc.


Rather than the density.. traffic speed could be more usefull? Example traffic_speed=20 @ 6:00-19:00 Mon-Fri , traffic_speed=15 @ 9:00-17:00 Sat-Sun (yes, busier on the weekends!).
If no traffic_speed then routers use the max_speed..

*OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  ).

Keep on going!

Cheers,

Sergio



On 2019-02-25 22:10, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))


It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

However, some of the stuff on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

AlaskaDave
Whoa,

What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc.

What's going on?

Signed,
Confused in Thailand. (AlaskaDave)

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:28 PM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 26/02/19 10:59, Sergio Manzi wrote:

+1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (https://xkcd.com/927/)

BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the Italian Traffic Code (Codice della Strada) are.

There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification (something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken) instead of a "descriptive classification".

Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of use to fit others classifications to.

But other concerns are emerging too (at least in my head!), like the administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (state, region, province, municipality, private)

Use operator=* ???

and ad-hoc values as input for the router (speed limits, traffic density, etc.


Rather than the density.. traffic speed could be more usefull? Example traffic_speed=20 @ 6:00-19:00 Mon-Fri , traffic_speed=15 @ 9:00-17:00 Sat-Sun (yes, busier on the weekends!).
If no traffic_speed then routers use the max_speed..

*OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  ).

Keep on going!

Cheers,

Sergio



On 2019-02-25 22:10, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))


It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

However, some of the stuff on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Warin
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 05:28, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of use to fit others classifications to.

There is such a page.  It probably won't help.  It confuses me and I live here. :)


--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 6:11 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind
> is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

Funny old one, though a bit sarcastic. Many standards we have today
have emerged from competing standards, and that's true from data
protocols to units of measurement.

I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Paul Allen
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.

What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.  It makes the
assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with its classification.
Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is still the implicit
assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a secondary route.

It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a primary route in the UK
to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a secondary route between the
same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.  Road classifications in the UK are essentially
hints to the routeing algorithm in drivers' heads.  A primary route from A to B is generally
preferable to a secondary route because of a combination of factors including speed, width,
straightness, length, junctions (lights or roundabouts), surface, and signage.  On any single
one of those metrics the secondary may be better than the primary, but overall the primary
is preferable.  A secondary route in one locality may be better in all respects than the primary
in a different locality but that route is a primary because it is the best route (for some values
of "best") betweentwo important locations.

Is this a good way to model thing?  Probably.  Because anyone in the UK looking to get from A to
B will consider primary routes first, trusting that the authorities have evaluated matters and that
the primary routes are (normally) the best routes to choose.  It's not perfect, which is why satnavs
usually offer the choice of looking for the fastest or shortest route.  But if all you have is a paper map,
then knowing which are primary and secondary routes is useful.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> +1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy (https://xkcd.com/927/)
>
> BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the Italian Traffic Code (Codice della Strada) are.
>
> There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification (something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken) instead of a "descriptive classification".
>
> But other concerns are emerging too (at least in my head!), like the administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (state, region, province, municipality, private) and ad-hoc values as input for the router (speed limits, traffic density, etc. *OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  ).

I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
the wiki. This would help Italians make sense of the map. For years
Brazil's Transit code categories have been assigned to OSM's classes
at least in urban areas and the result has been quite satisfactory. We
do have some lack of consensus on what to do outside those areas, as
OSM has many more classes to choose from that our Transit Code
describes, but we're still working on it.

Except for the official categories in Codice della Strada, I think
such attributes of the road should go into specific tags. For example,
in Brazil, the administrative responsibility is represented by the
road's reference code, so it can be easily identified from ref=* tags
(only the municipal level has no codes, with a few exceptions).
Private roads can simply be tagged with access=private; this is common
in Brazil in gated communities [1]. Speed limits can be easily
specified with maxspeed=*.

Traffic density is related to two things in Brazil: the road's planned
function, and its de facto function. Both at urban and rural levels,
many roads are not as developed as their plan would imply - not too
different from the unpaved roads of Canada (still classified as
trunk), which appear far away from the more developed urban centres.
It seems that, not only in Brazil, it is common practice to expand a
road to its final physical design only when rising demand justifies
the investment. When there are no speed limit signs, it is this
planned (not the de facto) function that counts legally when assessing
speed limits and access rights.

This leads to a situation where many roads seem unimportant when
context is ignored, despite being the main routes between important,
nearby places:
- main routes between capitals of adjacent states being partially unpaved
- main routes between a larger city and its satellite villages
accessible only by unpaved roads
- unpaved urban collectors (rarely, even arterials) in less developed cities
- roads with few lanes that are in good condition, are high speed but
have little traffic

"Preference" as in "this is a good road to drive on" is very subjective.

When using routers such as OSRM and GraphHopper, route choice ignores
highway classification after maxspeed=* and surface=* are mapped, with
the exception of access rights of particular modes (bicycles on
motorways, cars on pedestrian ways, etc.).

When using simpler routers based on heuristics, it is important that
each network level (trunk, primary, secondary) do not have any gaps
(eg. a trunk/primary through road should connect both ends of a city),
otherwise computed routes are likely to needlessly tell the driver to
go around usually fine routes.

Finally, there's the visual aspect for users that are not using
automated routers (like those using printed maps). Commercial maps do
not have gaps in classification, as this makes reading harder and
leads to confusion.

Regards,

[1] Gated community example with private residential ways:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7332391

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 9:40 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
>> on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
>> functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.
>
>
> What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.  It makes the
> assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with its classification.
> Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is still the implicit
> assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a secondary route.

This leads me to this question: if we can map road attributes using
specific tags (width=*, speed=*, lanes=*, surface=*, even divided=*
which is currently represented by geometry), then why highway=* has to
correlate strictly with them? I think highway=* is intended to
represent something else, not what mappers commonly think, though the
two would be correlated.

> It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a primary route in the UK
> to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a secondary route between the
> same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.  Road classifications in the UK are essentially
> hints to the routeing algorithm in drivers' heads.  A primary route from A to B is generally
> preferable to a secondary route because of a combination of factors including speed, width,
> straightness, length, junctions (lights or roundabouts), surface, and signage.  On any single
> one of those metrics the secondary may be better than the primary, but overall the primary
> is preferable.  A secondary route in one locality may be better in all respects than the primary
> in a different locality but that route is a primary because it is the best route (for some values
> of "best") betweentwo important locations.

There's a very interesting similar situation near the place where I
live in Brazil. There are two main routes between a metropolis of 4
million people (Porto Alegre) and the second largest city in the state
(Caxias do Sul), which are 2 hours apart from each other: the shorter
federal highway, and a longer string of three state highways. Both are
paved, but the state highways are divided and higher speed, while the
federal highway contorts through hilly terrain. As a result, the state
highways are the main route between the two, so, there's consensus
that in this particular case the federal highway is not as important
and the state highways should be classified as more important than
that one.

A while ago I crunched some numbers and revealed that paved federal
highways highly correlate with the functional trunk class as published
by some local authorities, though the correlation is not exact. So if
we were classifying based solely on attributes, we would have achieved
a result that is not in line with consensus in this rather significant
case, though it would mostly agree in general.

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> Whoa,
>
> What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to
> come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified
> or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic
> speed, and some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways,
> etc.
>
> What's going on?

It's the tagging list.  It'll move on to the price of fish next :)

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-02-26 14:13, Andy Townsend wrote:

> On 26/02/2019 09:58, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>> Whoa,
>>
>> What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc.
>>
>> What's going on?
>
> It's the tagging list.  It'll move on to the price of fish next :)
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy

Yeah... true... but interesting discussion nonetheless!

Cheers,

Sergio



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for example).

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 6:39 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.

What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.  It makes the
assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with its classification.
Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is still the implicit
assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a secondary route.

It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a primary route in the UK
to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a secondary route between the
same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.  Road classifications in the UK are essentially
hints to the routeing algorithm in drivers' heads.  A primary route from A to B is generally
preferable to a secondary route because of a combination of factors including speed, width,
straightness, length, junctions (lights or roundabouts), surface, and signage.  On any single
one of those metrics the secondary may be better than the primary, but overall the primary
is preferable.  A secondary route in one locality may be better in all respects than the primary
in a different locality but that route is a primary because it is the best route (for some values
of "best") betweentwo important locations.

Is this a good way to model thing?  Probably.  Because anyone in the UK looking to get from A to
B will consider primary routes first, trusting that the authorities have evaluated matters and that
the primary routes are (normally) the best routes to choose.  It's not perfect, which is why satnavs
usually offer the choice of looking for the fastest or shortest route.  But if all you have is a paper map,
then knowing which are primary and secondary routes is useful.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by AlaskaDave
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:01 AM Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Whoa,
>
> What happened to the original topic of this thread? We were trying to come up with a system of determining whether a highway is classified or residential. Now we're talking about traffic density and traffic speed, and some sort of numerical classification scheme for motorways, etc.
>
> What's going on?

Highway classification is confusing at all (motorised) levels and
we're comparing principles used for other classes to see which should
apply to these two. At least that's how I was understanding it.

Regards

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334

All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are not!

Sergio


On 2019-02-26 14:30, Paul Johnson wrote:
> Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for example).


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
Only as a philosophical detour: sounds like the sort of difference
between highway=footway and highway=pedestrian. It deserves its own
topic I think.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:32 AM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Honestly couldn't hurt the cycleways to have a better model than just path and cycleway, since some networks can get quite complex (consider quietways and cycle superhighways; or the multitiered systems in The Netherlands, for example).

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Allen

Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:40 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 12:17, Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't think a uniform, worldwide highway class standardisation based
on road attributes is possible and satisfactory. But I think a
functional one would be, at least as a guiding principle.

What we currently have doesn't reflect reality too well, even in the UK.  It makes the
assumption that the width/capacity/speed of a road correlates well with its classification.


this may be the situation in the UK, in the rest of the world (at least non-Commonwealth), we do not have these issues, because we are classifying the roads ourselves, rather than translating one of the different categorizations that are locally available.


 
Of course, we have lanes and speed limits to refine matters, but there is still the implicit
assumption by many mappers that a primary route is "better" than a secondary route.


of course, under "normal" conditions, a primary road should be "better" than a secondary road, for long-distance travel.

 

It's sort of true, in the UK, most of the time.  But it is possible for a primary route in the UK
to have fewer lanes or lower speeds for part of its length than a secondary route between the
same two locations.  Unlikely, but possible.


this is again a problem isolated to the UK, and not useful to discuss on the international mailing list because it really only applies to British areas.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Fernando Trebien


Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]>:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
the wiki.


not at all, we already have classified all of our roads according to wiki, surroundings/context, local knowledge etc.
If we are to add "Codice della Strada" classes, it should not influence the highway class, it should be an additional tag.

We might also decide to tag the Italian network classes explicitly. I'm not an expert in this field, but from a quick internet lookup it appears in Italy there are 4 classes of (kind of) movement: a - primary network (transit), b - principal network (distribution), c - secondary network (penetration), d - local network (access).
For the specific characteristics you must take into account whether the road is inside or outside of a built-up area (this is generally an interesting information for which we do not explicitly cater in general with our tagging, but which should probably be introduced).

When planning a road you must additionally take into account:
- entity of movement (median distance that the vehicles travel)
- territorial connecting function (national, interregional, provincial, local)
- traffic components (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorvehicles, pedestrians, etc.)

You can find more information in this ministrial decrete from 2001 which was issued after the new 1992 CdS law: http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=1983
(this is mainly thought as a reference for the Italian mappers, I do not expect the others to read through 100 pages in Italian).

The CdS classes are only part of the entire picture, e.g. the same CdS class (example "B Strada extraurbana principale") may be used for a "movement a" or "movement b" kind of road.

 
This would help Italians make sense of the map.


really, the sense does not come from classifications mostly, it is the refs and names that make the information locally relevant. Joe Mapuser really doesn't need all the detail information typically, because we have already conveniently summarized everything into a single highway class ;-)
Still, we should not deny the addition of detail, but it likely doesn't mean we can set up a lookup-table CdS to highway class and be done.


Except for the official categories in Codice della Strada, I think
such attributes of the road should go into specific tags.


if there is a clear 1:1 correlation between CdS and OSM, e.g. motorways, we already have that information in the map (well, besides we do not have specific tags yet for motorways in built-up settings).
 


For example,
in Brazil, the administrative responsibility is represented by the
road's reference code, so it can be easily identified from ref=* tags


same in Germany, Italy and likely many other places indeed.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi


Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]>:
... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334

All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are not!



Venice is a globally unique (or maybe almost unique) exception anyway, but what we currently have there is the result of people reclassifying all the footways as pedestrian roads, even if they are 50 cm wide. I have started in the past several attempts to open a discussion on this, but it felt like Don Quixote. See this as an example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488627565/history I have surveyed it myself, like many others, where I began to reclassify the very narrow footpaths from pedestrian to footway, but I am not local and people destroy the finer grained distinction of footway and pedestrian as soon as you add them, I guess they do not want the red dots. It is unfortunate, because it makes the Venice map much harder to read and less useful. If you are local, please try to improve the situation, we do not need new tags, it would be sufficient to apply the existing ones consistently rather than indiscriminately.

Cheers,
Martin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
I believe you, I've spent a week there one year ago. As a map user I
would prefer to have the safe passages during acqua alta [1] somehow
highlighted, or at least the main pedestrian routes between the main
plazas, and I think many of the narrower alleys (some are narrower
than the width of a car) could be highway=footway with no damage to
map readability.

[1] http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4259181423_586509d152.jpg

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:40 AM Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>
> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are not!
>
> Sergio

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 11:20 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]>:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
>> be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
>> the wiki.
>
> not at all, we already have classified all of our roads according to wiki, surroundings/context, local knowledge etc.
> If we are to add "Codice della Strada" classes, it should not influence the highway class, it should be an additional tag.

Well, I brought this up because it would be interesting to discuss at
least how is the official classification of roads in Italy inadequate
for OSM's highway=*.

> We might also decide to tag the Italian network classes explicitly. I'm not an expert in this field, but from a quick internet lookup it appears in Italy there are 4 classes of (kind of) movement: a - primary network (transit), b - principal network (distribution), c - secondary network (penetration), d - local network (access).

> You can find more information in this ministrial decrete from 2001 which was issued after the new 1992 CdS law: http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=1983
> (this is mainly thought as a reference for the Italian mappers, I do not expect the others to read through 100 pages in Italian).

What's described in pages 5-8 sounds a lot like the main functional
categories used in the US and in Brazil. [1] Starting at page 23 this
document presents some physical profiles of roads. As a developed
country, I would expect this to be quite uniform across Italy. If that
is true, then physical attributes can indeed determine highway=* in
OSM.

Apparently what is different between Italy and Brazil is that Italy
has a unified classification system for the whole country, whereas in
Brazil each municipality can define different physical profiles and
highway classes for its streets and roads (non-municipal roads of
course are more standardized). So, in Brazil, I've had more success
first assigning municipal classes to the national classes, and then
those to OSM. But if classification is done solely by the physical
attributes, then variations between municipalities break the
functional organization of the system, leading to a messy map. Some
Brazilian municipalities or even parts of municipalities have been
built with American standards (wide, straight streets), others
(usually older) with European standards (curvy streets, narrower,
sometimes as narrow as medieval streets).

> For the specific characteristics you must take into account whether the road is inside or outside of a built-up area (this is generally an interesting information for which we do not explicitly cater in general with our tagging, but which should probably be introduced).
>
> When planning a road you must additionally take into account:
> - entity of movement (median distance that the vehicles travel)
> - territorial connecting function (national, interregional, provincial, local)
> - traffic components (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorvehicles, pedestrians, etc.)

That's very much what functional classification is all about.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_classification

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 2019-02-26 15:19, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 13:52 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]>:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:00 PM Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think the official categories in Codice della Strada should probably
be assigned to OSM's classes by closely matching the descriptions in
the wiki.



Hi!

The above citation could be mistakenly taken as mine, but that's not the case...

Cheers,

Sergio


not at all, we already have classified all of our roads according to wiki, surroundings/context, local knowledge etc.
If we are to add "Codice della Strada" classes, it should not influence the highway class, it should be an additional tag.

We might also decide to tag the Italian network classes explicitly. I'm not an expert in this field, but from a quick internet lookup it appears in Italy there are 4 classes of (kind of) movement: a - primary network (transit), b - principal network (distribution), c - secondary network (penetration), d - local network (access).
For the specific characteristics you must take into account whether the road is inside or outside of a built-up area (this is generally an interesting information for which we do not explicitly cater in general with our tagging, but which should probably be introduced).

When planning a road you must additionally take into account:
- entity of movement (median distance that the vehicles travel)
- territorial connecting function (national, interregional, provincial, local)
- traffic components (light vehicles, heavy vehicles, motorvehicles, pedestrians, etc.)

You can find more information in this ministrial decrete from 2001 which was issued after the new 1992 CdS law: http://www.mit.gov.it/mit/mop_all.php?p_id=1983
(this is mainly thought as a reference for the Italian mappers, I do not expect the others to read through 100 pages in Italian).

The CdS classes are only part of the entire picture, e.g. the same CdS class (example "B Strada extraurbana principale") may be used for a "movement a" or "movement b" kind of road.

 
This would help Italians make sense of the map.


really, the sense does not come from classifications mostly, it is the refs and names that make the information locally relevant. Joe Mapuser really doesn't need all the detail information typically, because we have already conveniently summarized everything into a single highway class ;-)
Still, we should not deny the addition of detail, but it likely doesn't mean we can set up a lookup-table CdS to highway class and be done.


Except for the official categories in Codice della Strada, I think
such attributes of the road should go into specific tags.


if there is a clear 1:1 correlation between CdS and OSM, e.g. motorways, we already have that information in the map (well, besides we do not have specific tags yet for motorways in built-up settings).
 


For example,
in Brazil, the administrative responsibility is represented by the
road's reference code, so it can be easily identified from ref=* tags


same in Germany, Italy and likely many other places indeed.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
1234567 ... 10