Trunk

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
89 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Trunk

Martijn van Exel-3
Question for you all:

What make Michigan state routes 5 and 10[1] trunks rather than primaries? 

To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.

Martijn


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

Re: Trunk

Paul Johnson-3
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade intersections.. I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the US. To my mind it's roads with no at-grade intersections but not built to interstate standards / not having an interstate designation... I'm not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.

A motorway would be two or more carriageways, limited access (ie, no driveways and no at-grade intersections).

A trunk road would either be a dual carriageway with surface intersections with cross streets, and limited or no direct driveway access (eg, OK 3 in Oklahoma County, aka Northwest Expressway).  Alternatively, a single carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma).  Essentially, almost a motorway but not quite there.



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

Re: Trunk

Richie Kennedy
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade intersections..
> I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the US. To my mind it's roads with
> no at-grade intersections but not built to interstate standards / not having an interstate
> designation... I'm not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.

If that were the case, then we'd have lots of partially controlled
access routes (i.e. no driveways, but at-grade intersections) to
change to "primary." IMHO, routes with partial control of access
should be classified as "trunk" and any highway with fully controlled
access (all cross roads are grade separated) should be classified as
"motorway," including those routes that are not quite to interstate
standards.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Alternatively, a single
> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only
> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma).  Essentially, almost a motorway
> but not quite there.

I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully
controlled  access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead
of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the
primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification.

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

Re: Trunk

Tod Fitch

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Richie Kennedy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> To my mind these are highway=primary mainly because of at-grade intersections..
>> I am still confused about what makes a trunk road in the US. To my mind it's roads with
>> no at-grade intersections but not built to interstate standards / not having an interstate
>> designation... I'm not looking to open up a can of worms but I would really like to understand.
>
> If that were the case, then we'd have lots of partially controlled
> access routes (i.e. no driveways, but at-grade intersections) to
> change to "primary." IMHO, routes with partial control of access
> should be classified as "trunk" and any highway with fully controlled
> access (all cross roads are grade separated) should be classified as
> "motorway," including those routes that are not quite to interstate
> standards.
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, a single
>> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only
>> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma).  Essentially, almost a motorway
>> but not quite there.
>
> I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully
> controlled  access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead
> of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the
> primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification.

A two lane (one lane each way, probably undivided) limited access (with interchanges) is, I believe, called a “super two” and the wiki calls for that to be tagged as trunk. [1]

Not sure how long that has been in the wiki, but it has been at least a couple of years as I used that guidance in tagging a “super two” in the Sierra Nevada foothills several years ago.


[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Trunk_tag



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

Re: Trunk

Paul Johnson-3
On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Tod Fitch <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Richie Kennedy <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully
> controlled  access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead
> of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the
> primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification.

A two lane (one lane each way, probably undivided) limited access (with interchanges) is, I believe, called a “super two” and the wiki calls for that to be tagged as trunk. [1]

Limited access just means few intersections or driveways.  Controlled access would be interchange exclusive.
 
Not sure how long that has been in the wiki, but it has been at least a couple of years as I used that guidance in tagging a “super two” in the Sierra Nevada foothills several years ago.

Correct, I believe a super-2 is a good qualification to be a trunk, not a motorway.  While they might have a lot of freeway-like features and offer freeway speeds, few people would typically consider them a freeway.

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

Re: Trunk

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Richie Kennedy

Richie Kennedy <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 7:48 PM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, a single
>> carriageway that is limited access, ie, no intersections, no driveways, only
>> ramps (eg, Chickasaw Turnpike in Oklahoma).  Essentially, almost a motorway
>> but not quite there.
>
> I *strongly* dispute Paul's assertion that a highway that has fully
> controlled  access but is single carriageway should be "trunk" instead
> of "motorway." Access control, not number of lanes, should be the
> primary guidance behind a motorway or trunk classification.
I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
characteristics:

  divided
  >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
  limited access

If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)



To answer Martijn's question, I also agree with Paul that "trunk" is
something that has a substantial part of the feel of a motorway.  It
might be only one lane in each direction (in NE we do not use the term
super two), it might not be really divided, and it might have occasional
driveways (at most one every quarter mile on average?)  or at-grade
intersections with lights every few miles.

We should realize that the current tags are the result of a long
historical process, including a few mappers that had a minority few that
there should be more higher-classification roads, and did massive
amounts of armchair retagging.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

signature.asc (167 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trunk

Richie Kennedy
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
> characteristics:
>
>   divided
>   >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
>   limited access
>
> If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
> there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
> those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
> it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)
>

Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
tagged as motorway. I will also share publically what I have already
shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled
access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an
invitation to an edit war.

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

Re: Trunk

Paul Johnson-3
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Richie Kennedy <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm with Paul here.  To be motorway, there are three critical
> characteristics:
>
>   divided
>   >=2 lanes each direction (so passing is possible)
>   limited access
>
> If those aren't all true, then it just isn't a motorway.  (I gather
> there is a road in Alaska labeled Interstate that doesn't meet all
> those, and I don't mind if the locals want to make an exception.  But if
> it isn't signed I-, then I don't think there should be exceptions.)
>

Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
tagged as motorway.

So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was NE2.
 
I will also share publically what I have already
shared with Paul privately: changing the tag on segments of controlled
access Super 2 in my area of knowledge in my local area is an
invitation to an edit war.

That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.


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

Re: Trunk

Richie Kennedy
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So far, it does appear that you are in the minority opinion on this, as was
> NE2.

In this group, I find your opinion to be strongly expressed; however,
I do not find consensus to be clear and convincing. OTOH, in the
AARoads forum, I would argue the consensus opinion would be clear and
convincing in favor of my position.

> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.

OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.

Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
changes to the map.

I will make an effort to explain my opinion this weekend. I do need
time to collect my thoughts and put them to a keyboard.

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

Re: Trunk

Kevin Kenny-4
In reply to this post by Richie Kennedy
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.

Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic is
grade separated.

I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
at-grade opposing
traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
Access is fully controlled, but there is
no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and
level sections.)

And I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has at-grade
crossing traffic. (Example: Taconic Parkway east of the Hudson in
eastern New York.
Dual-carriageway for the entire length, and all crossings with major roads are
elevated, but there are occasional minor roads and driveways that
cross at grade.)

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this particular
fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
tagging seen
in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
information to a driver.

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders (not
necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
of a downgrade.

It would bother me a little to have either of these roads labeled
'primary'. It would bother me a lot more to have either one labeled
'motorway'. And the current tagging of Taconic Parkway offers the
worst of both worlds.

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

Re: Trunk

Paul Johnson-3
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.

Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?

I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas).

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic is
grade separated.

Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.
 
I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
at-grade opposing
traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
Access is fully controlled, but there is
no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and
level sections.)

I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah.  And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run.  So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't be properly eliminated.

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this particular
fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
tagging seen
in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
information to a driver.

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders (not
necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
of a downgrade.

This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short).

Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but not quite a freeway.

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

Re: Trunk

Martijn van Exel-3
Thanks all for your input. With this advice in mind, and my own thinking / opinion, I wrote the a diary entry which I hope will spark further debate :) https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/42450

Best
Martijn 

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full NE2
> defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is properly
> tagged as motorway.

Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?

I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a controlled access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both directions, typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances to facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas).

My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic is
grade separated.

Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.
 
I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
at-grade opposing
traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and Rutland, Vermont.
Access is fully controlled, but there is
no grade separation between opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on
steep grades, but passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and
level sections.)

I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly because a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 km of motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few similar situations with driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into bona-fide interstates in Utah.  And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through the drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state run.  So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't be properly eliminated.

I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this particular
fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
tagging seen
in http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that you can
put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about placing
a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no useful
information to a driver.

It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow shoulders (not
necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed limit as primary roads
in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be if we had designated trunk
roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway encourages unsafe driving,
and at the threshold of an intersection is not sufficient notice to drivers
of a downgrade.

This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in Vancouver, WA; and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for that whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate intersections at 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally opposite what you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short).

Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but not quite a freeway.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

Re: Trunk

EthnicFood IsGreat
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:59:40 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson <[hidden email]>
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Message-ID:
> <CAMPM96oAbjKXVhaA1L5s9yCTEvuAYDAJk74ogDSjowf9WzkB-
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full
> > > NE2
> > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is
> > > properly tagged as motorway.
> >
> > Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
> >
>
> I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a controlled
> access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both directions,
> typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances to
> facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas).
>
> My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
> > is
> > grade separated.
> >
>
> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the super-two
> debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, controlled access,
> and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited
> access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more
> characteristic of trunks to me.
>
>
> > I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
> > at-grade opposing traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and
> > Rutland, Vermont.
> > Access is fully controlled, but there is no grade separation between
> > opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on steep grades, but
> > passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and level
> > sections.)
> >
>
> I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly because
> a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 km of
> motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few similar situations with
> driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into bona-fide
> interstates in Utah.  And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through the
> drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state
> run.  So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to
> ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't be
> properly eliminated.
>
> I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
> > particular
> > fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
> > tagging seen in
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
> > nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
> > you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that
> > you can put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about
> > placing a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no
> > useful information to a driver.
> >
>
> It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
> > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow
> > shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed
> > limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be
> > if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway
> > encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is
> > not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade.
> >
>
> This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in Vancouver, WA;
> and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for that
> whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and
> abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate intersections at
> 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that
> a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does
> significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally opposite what
> you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short).
>
> Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but not quite
> a freeway.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> us/attachments/20171006/c655e709/attachment.html>


Like many topics on this mailing list, this topic keeps popping up from time to time and never gets resolved.  When I first joined OSM about three years ago, I read the Wiki topics about road classifications, including those specific to the US.  There are a lot of comments on there, going back many years.  The issue was not resolved then, and it never gets resolved every time it is brought up on the mailing lists.  In my opinion, this issue is so broad and varied, a consensus will never be reached this way.  I believe a different procedure will be required.

Mark


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

Fwd: Trunk

Martijn van Exel-3
resending to list from a working email.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
To: Mark Bradley <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Talk US <[hidden email]>


I think this is the best 'procedure' we have -- discussion. It can take a long time, but it is the only way to ensure a broad spectrum of opinions is heard. This is one of the important things that set us apart from other maps, where decisions about these topics are made for you.

That said -- yes it can be frustrating that some topics never seem to get resolved. In part this is the nature of a collaborative project.. But in this case, I tried to propose something actionable (a proposal for a definition) based on past and fresh insights. My hope is that it leads there is enough of a consensus to improve the wiki. 

What would you propose we do instead?

Martijn

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Mark Bradley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:59:40 -0500
> From: Paul Johnson <[hidden email]>
> To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> Message-ID:
>       <CAMPM96oAbjKXVhaA1L5s9yCTEvuAYDAJk74ogDSjowf9WzkB-
> [hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Richie Kennedy
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Perhaps I should make it clear that I am willing to pull a **full
> > > NE2
> > > defense** of the position that a controlled-access Super 2 is
> > > properly tagged as motorway.
> >
> > Do we have differing definitions of a Super Two?
> >
>
> I believe we're all on the same page that a super-two type situation is a controlled
> access, single carriageway, where that single carriageway operates in both directions,
> typically two lanes (though there may be additional lanes for short distances to
> facilitate merging, exiting or at toll plazas).
>
> My personal threshold for 'motorway' is that potential conflicting traffic
> > is
> > grade separated.
> >
>
> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the super-two
> debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way, free-flowing, controlled access,
> and at least two carriageways as the minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited
> access, at-grade intersections, single carriageway, this all would be more
> characteristic of trunks to me.
>
>
> > I'm not comfortable with tagging as 'motorway' any road that has
> > at-grade opposing traffic. (Example: US 7 in between Arlington and
> > Rutland, Vermont.
> > Access is fully controlled, but there is no grade separation between
> > opposing lanes. Climbing lanes are provided on steep grades, but
> > passing in the oncoming lane is lawful in some straight and level
> > sections.)
> >
>
> I've made a one-off exception in the case of US 412 on Diamond Head, mostly because
> a single, lone, relatively unused junction remains at grade out of over 160 km of
> motorway largely due to terrain limitations.  There's a few similar situations with
> driveways and the occasional extremely minor road going directly into bona-fide
> interstates in Utah.  And of course, the traffic lights to let ships through the
> drawbridge on I 5, literally the only traffic light on that road for it's entire three state
> run.  So there is an edge case to motorways where every attempt has been made to
> ensure traffic is free flowing and conflict-free, but some single point couldn't be
> properly eliminated.
>
> I'm not planning to tag or retag anything; I don't have a dog in this
> > particular
> > fight. I write this message as a data consumer. But I think that the
> > tagging seen in
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/41.88704/-73.76900 is utterly
> > nonsensical. What the Sam Hill does it mean to have a 'motorway' that
> > you tag as 'trunk' for barely the width of the intersection so that
> > you can put a grade crossing on it? It might silence a warning about
> > placing a grade crossing on something as a motorway, but there's no
> > useful information to a driver.
> >
>
> It's worse than useless - it raises the false expectation that the road is a
> > motorway when it is not. It has grade crossings; it has narrow
> > shoulders (not necessarily a disqualifier); it has the same speed
> > limit as primary roads in its vicinity. It's a trunk road, or would be
> > if we had designated trunk roads in the US. Tagging it as a motorway
> > encourages unsafe driving, and at the threshold of an intersection is
> > not sufficient notice to drivers of a downgrade.
> >
>
> This reminds me of WA 500 between I 5 just north of Officer's Row in Vancouver, WA;
> and Fourth Plain near the Sifton neighborhood. It really should be trunk for that
> whole length due to the mix of at-grade and grade separated intersections and
> abrupt end on a surface street (and even after the last intermediate intersections at
> 42nd and at Stapleton get grade separated, I'd still be wary of calling any part of that
> a motorway until something's done about the end at Fourth Plain, because it does
> significantly interrupt traffic coming from the expressway part, literally opposite what
> you would expect out of a freeway, particularly when it's so short).
>
> Trunk is basically everything that's more freeway-like than a boulevard, but not quite
> a freeway.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-
> us/attachments/20171006/c655e709/attachment.html>


Like many topics on this mailing list, this topic keeps popping up from time to time and never gets resolved.  When I first joined OSM about three years ago, I read the Wiki topics about road classifications, including those specific to the US.  There are a lot of comments on there, going back many years.  The issue was not resolved then, and it never gets resolved every time it is brought up on the mailing lists.  In my opinion, this issue is so broad and varied, a consensus will never be reached this way.  I believe a different procedure will be required.

Mark


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



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

Re: Trunk

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3

Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> writes:

> Would you consider oncoming traffic as conflicting?  That's the crux on the
> super-two debate.  I would consider at least two lanes each way,
> free-flowing, controlled access, and at least two carriageways as the
> minimum threshold for motorways.  Limited access, at-grade intersections,
> single carriageway, this all would be more characteristic of trunks to me.

I don't see it as necessary to define non-divided-highway as conflicting
or not.  In theory, people stay on their side of the yellow line, and it
isn't, but in practice, they cross sometimes.  The point of divided is
of course that they can't cross.  And it leads to needing a 2nd lane for
passing.


I find the notion of super-2 as motorway to be a very minority opinion.
Until Richie supported that position, I would not have expected anyone
to argue that, and I have not seen anyone else take that position.

We do have debates about how far along the primary-motorway continuum a
road has to be in order to be tagged as trunk, and I think that's where
there's a fair bit of fuzz (how many driveways, distance between
intersections, etc. -- e.g., 1/10 miles ok, 10/mile not, and it's hard
somewhere in between).



Does anybody else think that a non-divided highway with one lane in each
direction, even if controlled access, should be tagged motorway rather
than trunk?

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

signature.asc (167 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Trunk

EthnicFood IsGreat
In reply to this post by Martijn van Exel-3
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 14:51:30 -0600
> From: Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]>
> To: OSM Talk US <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Talk-us] Fwd:  Trunk
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Martijn van Exel <[hidden email]>
> Date: Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk
> To: Mark Bradley <[hidden email]>
> Cc: OSM Talk US <[hidden email]>
>
>
> I think this is the best 'procedure' we have -- discussion. It can take a long time, but it
> is the only way to ensure a broad spectrum of opinions is heard. This is one of the
> important things that set us apart from other maps, where decisions about these
> topics are made for you.
>
> That said -- yes it can be frustrating that some topics never seem to get resolved. In
> part this is the nature of a collaborative project.. But in this case, I tried to propose
> something actionable (a proposal for a
> definition) based on past and fresh insights. My hope is that it leads there is enough
> of a consensus to improve the wiki.
>
> What would you propose we do instead?
>
> Martijn


[...]


This subject was discussed at great length in the Wiki on this page[1], beginning ten years ago.  No conclusion was reached.  There were basically three main ways of classifying roads that were proposed:  based on administrative level, based on physical characteristics, and functional classification.  It seems these systems are mutually exclusive, so in my opinion we must agree to adopt one of these classifications as the foundation of our tagging system (possibly with some agreed-upon exceptions).  Unless we do that, I believe this discussion will go on forever, because each system has some merits.

Mark

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_roads_tagging


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

Re: Trunk

Bill Ricker
In reply to this post by Richie Kennedy
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.

> OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
> classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.

> Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
> changes to the map.

Largely separate from the wiki/tag debate about how America should
implement Brit-centric tags (that defy common sense here), the above
portion of the exchange is also important.

Arm-chair mappers should give some leeway to the local on-the-ground mappers.
Even when they're "objectively wrong" *(according to some Brit-centric
wiki tag entry).

NE2 was "objectively wrong" *^ _and_ /unilaterally/ /bulk-editing/
from the /armchair/.

If one of us coastal armchair mappers unilaterally bulk-edits Richie's
local roads, we'd have three out of four NE2-likeness points on us.
There is plenty of wrong to fix without declaring edit-war on Richie's roads.
Let's give the local mapper the benefit of the doubt in the DB at
least until the Wiki-war is finished.
(And even then, cut the local some slack.)

How do we tell if the Way (or Relation, Node) in question has been
Edited by a local?
You've all got your area(s) of interest in your osm.org/user/ profile,
and may even leave diary entries or blog entries on OSM?  If we click
through the users on the edit history, we'll see if their changesets
are spanning the continent or primarily local interest very quickly,
even if the profile description isn't set.


--
Bill Ricker
[hidden email]
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux

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

Re: Trunk

Paul Johnson-3
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bill Ricker <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.

> OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
> classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.

> Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
> changes to the map.

Largely separate from the wiki/tag debate about how America should
implement Brit-centric tags (that defy common sense here), the above
portion of the exchange is also important.

Well, except I legitimately had no reason to expect Richie to be upset when I was catching up on my (then rather huge) backlog of notes; more on that below.
 
NE2 was "objectively wrong" *^ _and_ /unilaterally/ /bulk-editing/
from the /armchair/.

Annoyingly, a lot of the current trunk debacle is leftover from the mass edit he did on ref:US to highway=trunk, when it was already in active use to fill that "bigger than primary, but not a freeway" gap that didn't get reverted.  Most DOTs have, even on their own maps, in the US have a different classification for that "freeway like thing with a mix of intersections and ramps" and "super 2" style roads that is roughly analogous (in America's own idiosyncratic ways) to a trunk the OSM classification.  I don't think anybody's really clear what NE2's definition was on that one other than "anything with a US in the route number is a trunk if it's not a motorway".  With that in mind, I would encourage to check the history on trunks (particularly edge cases that could slide to motorway or primary) and take NE2's opinion with a grain of salt.

Martijn van Exel's dealing with this problem in Utah right now.  I feel like we'd be closer to a consensus on this in general had the bulk-edit-to-trunk situation had at least reverted to what was in the TIGER import.  It wouldn't have been perfect but it would have been closer to reality than what we got left with, hindsight being 20/20 on this.
 
If one of us coastal armchair mappers unilaterally bulk-edits Richie's
local roads, we'd have three out of four NE2-likeness points on us.
There is plenty of wrong to fix without declaring edit-war on Richie's roads.
Let's give the local mapper the benefit of the doubt in the DB at
least until the Wiki-war is finished.
(And even then, cut the local some slack.)

We're both relatively local to the place in question.  Richie might be closer, but I'm not obliviously ignorant to the area in question.  We've crossed paths on the map before and, to my recollection, we've never had issues.  In my 8 years on the project so far, I can pretty safely say this is a very cooperative community.  I felt a little blindsided on that, hence my initial response.


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

Re: Trunk

AlaskaDave
I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus is primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come to mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections tagged motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in rural areas down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway system in Alaska where a single highway serves an immense largely unpopulated geographical and area. Most sections of those highways are "trunk" roads by most definitions yet they have normal at-grade intersections, intersections with driveways, tracks, etc. 

I'm a novice with highway tagging of this sort but if any of you more experienced mappers would care to take a look at those two highways, any feedback would be appreciated.

Keep up the good work.

AlaskaDave

On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Bill Ricker <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Richie Kennedy
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:12 AM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> That's entirely on you at this point, I edit in good faith.

> OTOH, you did know that a local mapper (me) would dispute the
> classification. I would consider that to be bad faith.

> Likewise, I should clarify that I do not intend to make unilateral
> changes to the map.

Largely separate from the wiki/tag debate about how America should
implement Brit-centric tags (that defy common sense here), the above
portion of the exchange is also important.

Well, except I legitimately had no reason to expect Richie to be upset when I was catching up on my (then rather huge) backlog of notes; more on that below.
 
NE2 was "objectively wrong" *^ _and_ /unilaterally/ /bulk-editing/
from the /armchair/.

Annoyingly, a lot of the current trunk debacle is leftover from the mass edit he did on ref:US to highway=trunk, when it was already in active use to fill that "bigger than primary, but not a freeway" gap that didn't get reverted.  Most DOTs have, even on their own maps, in the US have a different classification for that "freeway like thing with a mix of intersections and ramps" and "super 2" style roads that is roughly analogous (in America's own idiosyncratic ways) to a trunk the OSM classification.  I don't think anybody's really clear what NE2's definition was on that one other than "anything with a US in the route number is a trunk if it's not a motorway".  With that in mind, I would encourage to check the history on trunks (particularly edge cases that could slide to motorway or primary) and take NE2's opinion with a grain of salt.

Martijn van Exel's dealing with this problem in Utah right now.  I feel like we'd be closer to a consensus on this in general had the bulk-edit-to-trunk situation had at least reverted to what was in the TIGER import.  It wouldn't have been perfect but it would have been closer to reality than what we got left with, hindsight being 20/20 on this.
 
If one of us coastal armchair mappers unilaterally bulk-edits Richie's
local roads, we'd have three out of four NE2-likeness points on us.
There is plenty of wrong to fix without declaring edit-war on Richie's roads.
Let's give the local mapper the benefit of the doubt in the DB at
least until the Wiki-war is finished.
(And even then, cut the local some slack.)

We're both relatively local to the place in question.  Richie might be closer, but I'm not obliviously ignorant to the area in question.  We've crossed paths on the map before and, to my recollection, we've never had issues.  In my 8 years on the project so far, I can pretty safely say this is a very cooperative community.  I felt a little blindsided on that, hence my initial response.


_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us




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

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

Re: Trunk

Paul Johnson-3


On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:
I m following this conversation in hopes that if it ever gets resolved someone will update the Wiki. I have my fears that, along with many other contentious issues, it may never be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Meanwhile, I'm doing major work in Alaska and although my current focus is primarily on adding geographic features, this issue has practical implications for me. The George Parks Highway and the Alaska Highway come to mind immediately. They are a bit of a mish-mash with some sections tagged motorway, some trunk, and the speed limit varies from 65 mph in rural areas down to 40 mph in towns. That's the nature of the highway system in Alaska where a single highway serves an immense largely unpopulated geographical and area. Most sections of those highways are "trunk" roads by most definitions yet they have normal at-grade intersections, intersections with driveways, tracks, etc. 

I don't consider intersections with driveways to be a dealbreaker.  On the primary/trunk edge cases, particularly on the "major highway/freeway cancelled after construction started" type situation, the relative lack of driveways and relative prevalence of ramps along with historical context might be the only claim to the very lowest end of trunk on a dual carriageway and potentially highest end of primary for a single carriageway (I'd only consider a single carriageway to be a trunk if it's completely controlled access with no at grade intersections or driveways).
 
I'm a novice with highway tagging of this sort but if any of you more experienced mappers would care to take a look at those two highways, any feedback would be appreciated. 

I'm a bit rusty on my Alaska geography, so if you got a relation or way ID to work with, that might help.  Excluding the unpaved primaries that I'm aware of that compose most of Alaska DOT's mileage, I'd hazard to guess Alaska has considerably more "trunk" than "motorway" miles, particularly outside of metro Anchorage.

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
12345