Road hierarchy

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
74 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
Hello

  Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
  * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
  * performing road network validation
  * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)

  Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle, pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.

  There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto" hierarchy:
  * motorway
  * trunk
  * primary
  * secondary
  * tertiary
  * unclassified
  * residential
  * living_street
  In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position. This is fine for the time being.
  I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.

  My question is about what goes further:
  track / service
  Which of them is higher?
  Does additional tags influence this? For example does adding service=driveway reduce position in hierarchy of service road? Does any value of tracktype change position of track road?

  And in general, is there a point of agreeing on this globally or it will stay regional anyway?

--
Tomas

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 16:37, Tomas Straupis <[hidden email]> wrote:

  There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto" hierarchy:
  * motorway
  * trunk
  * primary
  * secondary
  * tertiary
  * unclassified
  * residential
  * living_street
  In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position. This is fine for the time being.

Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified
 
   My question is about what goes further:
  track / service
  Which of them is higher?
  Does additional tags influence this? For example does adding service=driveway reduce position in hierarchy of service road? Does any value of tracktype change position of track road?

Once again, personally service before track, maybe further split that highway=service by itself is higher that the "types" of service road (driveway, parking aisle etc) 

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
> Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified

  Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined
for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what
I understand it was always in the group of primary/secondary/tertiary
just the one which does not have an official classification - thus
"unclassified".

> Once again, personally service before track, maybe further split that highway=service by itself is higher that the "types" of service road (driveway, parking aisle etc)

  This way of interpreting service would make it impossible to
identify if missing service=* tag means:
  1. missing tag/information
  2. specified higher priority service road
  For example if you have service=driveway and want to make it higher
priority service road, you should change service value to something
else rather than remove service=* key.

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:

> Hello
>
>   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
>   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
>   * performing road network validation
>   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
>
>   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle,
> pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.
>
>   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> hierarchy:
>   * motorway
>   * trunk
>   * primary
>   * secondary
>   * tertiary
>   * unclassified
>   * residential
>   * living_street
>   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other
> regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position.
> This is fine for the time being.
>   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.
For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
city boundaries, and as soon as there is predominent residential it
cant be a unclassified.

So my guideline was:

Unclassified
        - Public road
        - Not classified
        - Outside of city Boundary
        - No predominant housing

Residential
        - Public road
        - Not classified
        - Housing


This has been a constant argument on different mailinglist for multiple
years. Defacto handle routing engines those two identical so retagging
a residential to unclassified does not make them "quicker" in terms
of routability.

So - YMMV - And its easy to start another argument here ;)

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>

  Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.

  But what about service/track?

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Erkin Alp Güney
Paved: service unpaved:track

4 Ağu 2019 Paz 11:47 tarihinde Tomas Straupis <[hidden email]> şunu yazdı:
2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:

  Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.

  But what about service/track?

_______________________________________________
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: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
Hi,

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:46:26AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
>
>   Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
>
>   But what about service/track?

Same dispute. I am one of the track opponents for years. I live in
the outback myself and i try to stop people tagging every road beyond
city limits as track.

A track is predominently for agricultural use. As soon as there
are people living there are predominently other uses than agricultural.

So the driveway to a farmyard can not be a track.

I once made the claim its not a track if:

- The postal service uses it or
- The garbage truck uses it or
- The school bus uses it

And all of that is true if people are living there. The problem is
that tracks are not even considered in most routing/navigational
software so a lot of my neighbours would not be reachable if tagging
outback roads as track would hold up.

So track is when there are no buildings or only a field barn.


Service is for me another complicated beast. For me a public road
can not be a service. unclassified is defined as the lowest
class of public roads. Service is defined as roads on industrial areas
etc.

So for Germany it cant be a service if:

- its of public use or
- it has a name (Only public roads get demoniated a name)

So i only tag roads on parking, driveway or industrial complexes
etc as service. I consider service roads beeing treated as
"access" destination and not for public use.

This is the reason why i dont think tagging every driveway as
access=private is a good thing to do. That causes all navigational
software to exclude these road snippets completely from their index. Now
you have private driveways up to multiple kilometers. When you now
navigate to an address you get told "You have reached your destination"
while beeing on the main road some multiple kilometers away not even
in visible contact to the building or the driveway. You might
even be on the wrong main road as mapping of addresses to the point
on the road network to navigate to is a minimum distance decision.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
In reply to this post by Erkin Alp Güney
2019-08-04, sk, 11:56 Erkin Alp Güney rašė:
> Paved: service unpaved:track

  service could always be paved and unpaved.
  track used to be always unpaved, but somewhere somehow tracktype1
became paved :-)

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Erkin Alp Güney
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:55:08AM +0300, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:
> Paved: service unpaved:track

So half of the highways in African countries are tracks?

IIRC osm does tag highway class by usage not by construction or
physical attributes.

So there is a perfect possibility that large stretches of primary roads
in Madagascar should carry a surface=dirt - So yes - highway=primary
surface=dirt is a pretty likely combination.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road hierarchy

Warin
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
On 04/08/19 19:08, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:56 Erkin Alp Güney rašė:
>> Paved: service unpaved:track
>    service could always be paved and unpaved.
>    track used to be always unpaved, but somewhere somehow tracktype1
> became paved :-)

I have a number of tracks around me. Some sections of them are paved to stop soil erosion. They are still tracks even if paved.

There are a number of main highways that are unpaved too, over long distances.

The surface of the road and how wide it is does not determine its importance to the road network and the local community.
The surface and width may impede or help transportation, but they don't change the necessity of using the roads.


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

Re: Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Let's say we have a residential road R. Going out of this residential road there is a way A into the neighbouring residential area (say 50m length). Out of that way A there is anower way B leading into the fields/forest which lies outside of the residential area. B way is long enough and significant, say leading to some locally significant object (ruins, tree, lake).

R
R
RAAABBBBBBBBBBBB
R  A
R


What could be correct:
a) A - service (service=???), B - track (tracktype=???)
b) A - track grade1 B - track grade>1
c) others

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Warin
On 04/08/19 19:19, Tomas Straupis wrote:

1)
> Let's say we have a residential road R.

2)
> Going out of this residential road there is a way A into the
> neighbouring residential area (say 50m length).

3) residential area road. I think this bit has been forgotten.


4)
> Out of that way A there is another way B leading into the
> fields/forest which lies outside of the residential area. B way is
> long enough and significant, say leading to some locally significant
> object (ruins, tree, lake).
>
>

>
> What could be correct:

Many things could be correct!

1 & 3 are minimum 'residential'.

2 .. I would say minimum 'unclassified'.

4 I would say minimum 'unclassified'. This could be 'track' but the
importance of the things at the end tend to elevate it.


Going to a higher classification is all about the importance of the
roads to the local community...

If the lake, tree and ruins get lots of traffic then the roads leading
there could be 'primary'! There is not enough information to make a 'rule'.



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

Re: Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
All right, let's make it more detailed and more extended.

R
R
RAAABBBBBBBBBBBB
R  A
R
R
RCCCC
R

Now A and C are ways leading into the inner territory of residential
building(s). But A has another important road B getting out of it, and
C does not. Which means A has through traffic while C does not. But
all of them are very minor ways visible as two tracks on the ground.
Way C is used say twice in a week.

Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
want to leave B.

Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
generalisation operation such as road pruning?

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:19:52PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:

> Let's say we have a residential road R. Going out of this residential road
> there is a way A into the neighbouring residential area (say 50m length).
> Out of that way A there is anower way B leading into the fields/forest
> which lies outside of the residential area. B way is long enough and
> significant, say leading to some locally significant object (ruins, tree,
> lake).
>
> R
> R
> RAAABBBBBBBBBBBB
> R  A
> R

> What could be correct:
> a) A - service (service=???), B - track (tracktype=???)
> b) A - track grade1 B - track grade>1
> c) others

Is A a public named road? Make is residential. Is it a driveway
just for a single home? Make it service.

Is B predominantly for agricultural purposes? Make it track. Are
there more visitors to the ruins and its a public road? Make
it unclassified. Otherwise people cant navigate their POI.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:46:05PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
> want to leave B.
>
> Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
> that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
> generalisation operation such as road pruning?

When you honestly look at roads something like a correct hierarchy
always ressembles.

This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
drop service and track.

Because a public road does not branch of a private road. There is
your hierarchy.

So getting back to your example:

R
R
RAAABBBBBBBBBBBB
R  A
R
R
RCCCC
R

If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.

Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road hierarchy

Tomas Straupis
2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.
>
> Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.

  And therefore *track is higher* in the hierarchy than service. Right?

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

Re: Road hierarchy

ael
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 10:30:49AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> >   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
> >   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
> >   * performing road network validation
> >   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
> >
> >   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle,
> > pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.
> >
> >   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> > hierarchy:
> >   * motorway
> >   * trunk
> >   * primary
> >   * secondary
> >   * tertiary
> >   * unclassified
> >   * residential
> >   * living_street
> >   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other
> > regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position.
> > This is fine for the time being.
> >   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.
>
+1

> For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
> unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
> has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
> city boundaries, and as soon as there is predominent residential it
> cant be a unclassified.

How have you come to that conclusion? It flatly contradicts the normal
meaning. Perhaps your local area uses the term "unclassified" in a way
different from the OSM convention?

ael


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

Re: Road hierarchy

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2

On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:


This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
drop service and track.

 
What definition of "public" and "private" are you using here? This is another can of worms.
 
No two maps are the same. At the end of the day, a cartographer will want control over their definition of "relative importance", based on objective things like official classification, width, lanes, ownership, access, traffic density, usage class (residential access etc)..... If we wilfully manipulate the tagging to facilitate a particular definition of "relative importance" we are breaking one of our own golden rules of course. So let's stick to objective quantities if at all possible. Then the "hierarchy" discussion is deferred to the cartographer in the consumption phase, instead of the contributor in the data collection phase.
 

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

Re: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:25:49PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>
> > This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
> > road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
> > drop service and track.
>
> What definition of "public" and "private" are you using here? This is
> another can of worms.

There is an official road hierarchy where all our roads fit in. These
are for public usage and typically carry an implicit access=yes.

service and track do not belong into this hierarchy. They carry
implicit restrictions which vary from country to country or even
county to county.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 01:18:13PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> > a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> > of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.
> >
> > Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.
>
>   And therefore *track is higher* in the hierarchy than service. Right?

IMHO no - You have a hierarchy of public roads - from
residential/unclassified to motorway. service and track are not
in this hierarchy - they stand outside and carry various restrictions
depending on local regulation and have different purposes.

So a road which is for the general public like a
residential/unclassified must not be only reachable via a track/service.
This would be a breakage in hierarchy. The public road network is always
interconnected and should not build islands which cant be reached by
only using track or service roads. For most of the routers and modes of
transportation these would be hard islands. Same issue arises of
overbroad usage of access=* tagging.

This is why i have multiple QA tasks under these assumptions and German
legalese ...

- A public road may not carry a access=*
  The German legalese does not have a sign which completely forbids
  usage. The most restrictive sign still allows going by foot.
  So the most restrictive access restriction could be vehicle=no
  (Except for construction - so i exclude highway=construction here)
- A public road may not carry any *=private
  If a public road is restricted to private its not a public road.
  Most likely this is a mistagging of the highway type
- A service road may not carry a name (Because in Germany only public
  roads get denominated a name). So either it has a name or its  
  a service.
- The nearest road to an address should not be a track.
  If the address is for living, the nearest road can not be a track
  as usage for living outweights agricultural usage by orders of
  magnitude. Or better - i search for the nearest legally usable
  road and have a cutoff for errors at arbitrarily chosen ~75meters.
  Most of the errors i find are long driveways which carry arbitrary
  access tags, or farmyards which are only reachable via tracks.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

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

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
1234