Trunk versus motorway

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
Can I get some voice of reason in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is obviously incorrect.

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

Re: Trunk versus motorway

Bryan Housel-2
Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

What you did by classifying it “trunk” back to the Apache Street interchange just looks weird.
Sorry, but I have to disagree, and would leave it as a motorway up to Gilcrease, then trunk beyond that point.

For comparison, our Garden State Parkway in NJ ends at an at grade intersection at Exit 0 in Cape May, and I think this is fine.

Thanks, Bryan



On Nov 28, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Can I get some voice of reason in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is obviously incorrect.
_______________________________________________
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
|

Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Evin Fairchild
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 6:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk versus motorway
To: Paul Johnson <[hidden email]>


I think you're misrepresenting the discussion. People are simply saying that the motorway destination should extend all the way to the first at grade intersection, rather than the interchange prior to the at grade intersection. Personally, I agree with this. The only exception would be if there's an at grade intersection sandwiched between two interchanges. In that case there should be a stretch of trunk in between the two interchanges.

Further, I strongly disagree with the way the Tisdale was originally tagged, (the entire thing, even the obvious freeway sections were originally trunk) because if we followed Paul's logic everywhere, most odd numbered 3 digit interstates would have to be tagged as trunk. Frankly, I've wanted to change this road from trunk to motorway in the past, but I've avoided doing so because this is Paul's home turf and I felt I'd just be shaking a hornet's nest.


-Evin (compdude) 

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 6:19 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email] wrote:
Can I get some voice of reason in https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/64919426?  There seems to be quite a few people (and one AARoads forum troll egging it on) that are trying to propel the idea that motorways have at-grade intersections, which is obviously incorrect.
_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:00 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting the discussion. People are simply saying that the motorway destination should extend all the way to the first at grade intersection, rather than the interchange prior to the at grade intersection. Personally, I agree with this. The only exception would be if there's an at grade intersection sandwiched between two interchanges. In that case there should be a stretch of trunk in between the two interchanges.

Right, but motorways are grade-separated, fully controlled, dual carriageways.  Throw in an at grade intersection, that's no longer grade separated.  That's not a freeway anymore, that's an expressway.  Expressways are semi-controlled and do have surface intersections, though some or even most may be grade separated.
 
Further, I strongly disagree with the way the Tisdale was originally tagged, (the entire thing, even the obvious freeway sections were originally trunk) because if we followed Paul's logic everywhere, most odd numbered 3 digit interstates would have to be tagged as trunk.

Well, let's talk about that.  There's quite a few out there that probably shouldn't be motorways, but instead motorway_link or trunk.  I 90 west of I 5 is mapped a motorway right now but it's just a spiderweb of ramps to the Seattle Bus Tunnel, 5th Avenue, Seattle Boulevard, 4th Avenue, and Martinez.  Rationale for going from the US 412 interchange being that's the last (only, really) major junction along Tisdale with an unambiguous motorway.

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Nathan Mills
Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.

North of that, either trunk or primary would be equally reasonable.

-Nathan

On November 28, 2018 10:21:41 PM EST, Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:00 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think you're misrepresenting the discussion. People are simply saying that the motorway destination should extend all the way to the first at grade intersection, rather than the interchange prior to the at grade intersection. Personally, I agree with this. The only exception would be if there's an at grade intersection sandwiched between two interchanges. In that case there should be a stretch of trunk in between the two interchanges.

Right, but motorways are grade-separated, fully controlled, dual carriageways.  Throw in an at grade intersection, that's no longer grade separated.  That's not a freeway anymore, that's an expressway.  Expressways are semi-controlled and do have surface intersections, though some or even most may be grade separated.
 
Further, I strongly disagree with the way the Tisdale was originally tagged, (the entire thing, even the obvious freeway sections were originally trunk) because if we followed Paul's logic everywhere, most odd numbered 3 digit interstates would have to be tagged as trunk.

Well, let's talk about that.  There's quite a few out there that probably shouldn't be motorways, but instead motorway_link or trunk.  I 90 west of I 5 is mapped a motorway right now but it's just a spiderweb of ramps to the Seattle Bus Tunnel, 5th Avenue, Seattle Boulevard, 4th Avenue, and Martinez.  Rationale for going from the US 412 interchange being that's the last (only, really) major junction along Tisdale with an unambiguous motorway.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:36 PM Nathan Mills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.

Right, but where are we getting that motorways have surface intersections now?

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Evin Fairchild
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

-Evin

On Nov 28, 2018 7:42 PM, "Paul Johnson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:36 PM Nathan Mills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.

Right, but where are we getting that motorways have surface intersections now?
_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Joseph Eisenberg
In California some roads have signs that say “End Freeway”, about 1/2 mile before the first intersection, eg I-8 in San Diego.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:04 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

-Evin

On Nov 28, 2018 7:42 PM, "Paul Johnson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:36 PM Nathan Mills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.

Right, but where are we getting that motorways have surface intersections now?
_______________________________________________
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

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Mike N.
In reply to this post by Nathan Mills
On 11/28/2018 10:36 PM, Nathan Mills wrote:
> Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south
> of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I
> don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.

   If we're looking for a generalized rule, consider that there may be
many miles of motorway between the last exit and the next at-grade
intersection, so it would make sense to keep that section as motorway.

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Evin Fairchild
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

You've contradicted yourself in that statement. 

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Evin Fairchild
What?! I haven't contradicted myself at all. I already said in my initial response (the one that I sent to only you by mistake) that in cases where there's an at grade intersection sandwiched in between two interchanges, the road should be marked as trunk in between. Other than that case, a road should be motorway all the way to the at-grade intersection, as is the case with the Tisdale Parkway.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:11 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

You've contradicted yourself in that statement. 

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Nathan Mills
I think this is a good general rule. In the instant case, the tagging should change at the point where the grass median ends northbound, IMO. That marks a definite change in the physical character of the road. I believe it was tagged like that when the carriageways were first split after the TIGER import, but I might be misremembering.

-Nathan



On November 29, 2018 12:01:58 AM EST, Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
What?! I haven't contradicted myself at all. I already said in my initial response (the one that I sent to only you by mistake) that in cases where there's an at grade intersection sandwiched in between two interchanges, the road should be marked as trunk in between. Other than that case, a road should be motorway all the way to the at-grade intersection, as is the case with the Tisdale Parkway.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:11 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

You've contradicted yourself in that statement. 

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Albert Pundt-2
I always tag based on the actual access control. At the end of a clear freeway, continue the motorway tagging to the first intersection or driveway, or if the road becomes single-carriageway and isn't a super-2 (a controlled-access freeway in which only one carriageway is constructed with accommodation for the second later). There is no "except for the intersections."

If a road like that has enough intersections spaced throughout its length, it should be tagged as trunk, perhaps with expressway=yes. Though with just two or three intersections nearby in the middle of a freeway (for example the handful of remaining intersections in the mostly-freeway section of US 29 in Maryland), I'd tag it as trunk only between the intersections and make the rest motorway.

The Tisdale Parkway should absolutely be tagged as motorway starting from the Gilcrease intersection southward. Gilcrease should be motorway as well from where it becomes dual-carriageway. The remaining sections of each of these roads should be tagged as trunk.

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 12:31 AM Nathan Mills <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think this is a good general rule. In the instant case, the tagging should change at the point where the grass median ends northbound, IMO. That marks a definite change in the physical character of the road. I believe it was tagged like that when the carriageways were first split after the TIGER import, but I might be misremembering.

-Nathan



On November 29, 2018 12:01:58 AM EST, Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
What?! I haven't contradicted myself at all. I already said in my initial response (the one that I sent to only you by mistake) that in cases where there's an at grade intersection sandwiched in between two interchanges, the road should be marked as trunk in between. Other than that case, a road should be motorway all the way to the at-grade intersection, as is the case with the Tisdale Parkway.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:11 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

You've contradicted yourself in that statement. 

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


--
—Albert Pundt

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Evin Fairchild
Even at the end, that's still an intersection, though.  In the real world, there's a transition to be mafe from freeway to that less than freeway situation at the traffic light. 

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 23:02 Evin Fairchild <[hidden email] wrote:
What?! I haven't contradicted myself at all. I already said in my initial response (the one that I sent to only you by mistake) that in cases where there's an at grade intersection sandwiched in between two interchanges, the road should be marked as trunk in between. Other than that case, a road should be motorway all the way to the at-grade intersection, as is the case with the Tisdale Parkway.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:11 PM Paul Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:02 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

You've contradicted yourself in that statement. 

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Albert Pundt-2


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018, 00:17 Albert Pundt <[hidden email] wrote:
 or if the road becomes single-carriageway and isn't a super-2 (a controlled-access freeway in which only one carriageway is constructed with accommodation for the second later).

A controlled access single carriageway would also be a trunk, not a motorway.  Basically motorways should only be things that meet current Interstate guidelines except maybe for hard shoulders. 

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Eric Ladner-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
That may be more of a note to motorists that "hey.. this freeway is coming to an end" rather than an absolute marker of "this freeway ends here at this sign".

San Diego's own GIS system has it marked as I-8 all the way up to where it splits into motorway links at Nimitz/Sunset Cliffs.

Arguing about where the motorway ends and a trunk/something else begins before an at-grade intersection is just splitting hairs.   IMO, it's a motorway all the way up to the intersection.  If you were standing with your back to the intersection looking down the motorway, there'd be nothing visible that would convince you it's not a motorway.

On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:11 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
In California some roads have signs that say “End Freeway”, about 1/2 mile before the first intersection, eg I-8 in San Diego.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 1:04 PM Evin Fairchild <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should tag as motorways a road with a surface intersection. I don't understand what it is that we're saying that's causing you to come to that conclusion. We are simply saying that the first surface intersection that a road comes across is where the motorway should change to trunk. 

-Evin

On Nov 28, 2018 7:42 PM, "Paul Johnson" <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:36 PM Nathan Mills <[hidden email]> wrote:
Unless there have been significant changes since I moved away, it should be tagged motorway between the IDL and the light at Apache/Gilcrease Extension. Before the Gilcrease was extended west of US-75, the Tisdale should have been tagged entirely as motorway. Adding the intersection did not change the character of the road south of the Gilcrease extension or the rights of adjacent landowners, so I don't see any particular reason to reclassify that segment.

Right, but where are we getting that motorways have surface intersections now?
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


--
Eric Ladner

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

Re: Trunk versus motorway

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Bryan Housel-2
Bryan Housel <[hidden email]> writes:

> Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road
that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway.  The basic
issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local
property of a road, and is really a statement about the road before and
after where one is talking about.

Assume an infinitely long road, divided, 2 lanes each way.  After a very
long time of no intersections, assume an at-grade intersection, and call
this coordinate 0, expressed in km.

Then, assume an another at-grade intersection at 0.100.  After that, at
0.110, and so on, with each being 1.1 times the previous.

By the time you get to 500 km between at-grade intersections, the
intevening roads are surely motorways.  At 100m, they surely are not.

In my view, to be tagged as motorway, the length of qualifying roadway
has to be long enough so that it feels like it is very long, as opposed
to a lucky 2 to 3-mile stretch of trunk that happens not to have any
intersections.

Overall, I would throw out that if a section that meets motorway specs
isn't at least 10 miles, it's still really nice trunk, and should not be
tagged motorway.  Maybe 10 is too much and it should be 5 mi, or 10km,
or maybe it should be 20 or 25 km.   But 1-2 miles is way too short to
flip back and forth.


I have no  idea if this supports or opposes Paul in this case :-)  But
I'm guessing it supports...

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

stevea
In reply to this post by Paul Johnson-3
Eric Ladner <[hidden email]> wrote
> That may be more of a note to motorists that "hey.. this freeway is coming to an end" rather than an absolute marker of "this freeway ends here at this sign".  San Diego's own GIS system has it marked as I-8 all the way up to where it splits into motorway links at Nimitz/Sunset Cliffs.

Having grown up there and surfed Ocean Beach and Pacific Beach many times, yes.

> Arguing about where the motorway ends and a trunk/something else begins before an at-grade intersection is just splitting hairs.   IMO, it's a motorway all the way up to the intersection.  If you were standing with your back to the intersection looking down the motorway, there'd be nothing visible that would convince you it's not a motorway.

According to Caltrans, the term "freeway" refers to a route that is restricted in access and does not have cross traffic.

"End Freeway" simply means that a route that has been restricted in access and free of cross traffic for the last number of miles has come to an end, said Caltrans spokeswoman Reid.

Although the route will often continue "well-maintained" and "free" for a while more, drivers should look for cross traffic and traffic lights just ahead, she said.

This is from the Los Angeles Times' "Traffic Talk" column, August 30, 1996.  And yes, I know for a fact (from having driven millions of miles of California Highway and recently passing my written license test again) that a "white sign with black text is a regulatory sign," meaning "by law, beginning where this sign is placed, forward."

In Santa Cruz, there is about 50 meters of highway=trunk between Highway 17 (freeway, motorway) and where 17 ends at signalized Ocean Street (highway=primary).  At first I was nonplussed about this being so tagged in OSM, but as I remembered where the regulatory (therefore, by law) "End Freeway" sign is (confirming it today), it actually is tagged correctly.

So, Eric is correct on both counts:  it is "hey, this freeway is coming to an end" AND it is "this freeway ends here at this sign."

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

Re: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2
I'm largely in agreement and this seems like how it's been done in practice.  Would also apply to WA 500 (which also should be a trunk east of I 205, if not at least 112th/Gher; with argument supporting 205 being that 112th/Gher is largely only used by way of it's I 205 North exit and supporting Gher as the break as it doesn't start slowing down until just before the WA 500 East merge), and until recently, the entire length west of the traffic light with Fourth Plain.

There's been a long tendency towards escalating highway priority, which kind of dilutes all of the definitions and overloads secondary, primary, trunk and motorway, that I've been trying to resist.  Like US 26 from where it goes single-carriageway east should be primary, same with US 97 north of Bend Parkway and south of Century Drive until the Klamath Falls Pilot and then again south of Reams Country Club, to use some more examples I'm very familiar with on the ground.  About the least motorway-like thing I'd call a motorway would be Arroyo Seco Parkway (most ramps are RORO with stop signs and no merge space, really not having changed much since it was parodied in 1950's Motor Mania.  

Single carriageway grade separated?  Trunk.  Dual carriageway, at-grade intersections but otherwise freeway like?  Trunk.  Traffic lights?  Trunk.  Fully controlled, fully grade seperated, high speed design?  Motorway.  Random 100km+ stretch of standard interstate-style highway (TLDR version) that passes a cow pasture whose only frontage is the freeway, accessible only through a private gate in the freeway fence?  Motorway.

Another set of situations I'm familiar with:  I 5 north of WA 543 (trucks prohibited, frequently stopped traffic to that point, speed limit gets down to 10 MPH, passes through several crosswalks, then not long after that and enters Canada, and doesn't properly continue as freeway again until the 8 Ave interchange on BC 99.  Nearly the mirror situation at the opposite end of I 5, it and 805 south of the San Ysidro interchange with the Mexican side currently mapped correctly.  Neither are remotely like, say, taking Germany's A 6 onto France's A 320 where everything's free flowing, and no checkpoint and not driving in a park.  A really good edge case would be between motorway and trunk would be I 5 between OR 99E and WA 14 (traffic lights for/and a draw bridge, no shoulders, and a blind sharp right turn at the north end northbound).

On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 7:36 PM Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Bryan Housel <[hidden email]> writes:

> Can’t a motorway begin or end at an at-grade intersection though?

Certainly, and I think the question is how long does a stretch of road
that meets motorway specs have to be to be tagged motorway.  The basic
issue is that "not having at-grade intersections" is not a local
property of a road, and is really a statement about the road before and
after where one is talking about.

Assume an infinitely long road, divided, 2 lanes each way.  After a very
long time of no intersections, assume an at-grade intersection, and call
this coordinate 0, expressed in km.

Then, assume an another at-grade intersection at 0.100.  After that, at
0.110, and so on, with each being 1.1 times the previous.

By the time you get to 500 km between at-grade intersections, the
intevening roads are surely motorways.  At 100m, they surely are not.

In my view, to be tagged as motorway, the length of qualifying roadway
has to be long enough so that it feels like it is very long, as opposed
to a lucky 2 to 3-mile stretch of trunk that happens not to have any
intersections.

Overall, I would throw out that if a section that meets motorway specs
isn't at least 10 miles, it's still really nice trunk, and should not be
tagged motorway.  Maybe 10 is too much and it should be 5 mi, or 10km,
or maybe it should be 20 or 25 km.   But 1-2 miles is way too short to
flip back and forth.


I have no  idea if this supports or opposes Paul in this case :-)  But
I'm guessing it supports...

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

Re: Fwd: Trunk versus motorway

Paul Johnson-3
In reply to this post by stevea


On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:28 PM OSM Volunteer stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
In Santa Cruz, there is about 50 meters of highway=trunk between Highway 17 (freeway, motorway) and where 17 ends at signalized Ocean Street (highway=primary).  At first I was nonplussed about this being so tagged in OSM, but as I remembered where the regulatory (therefore, by law) "End Freeway" sign is (confirming it today), it actually is tagged correctly.


Looks like there's a mistake on CA 1 west of CA 17 near there. 

_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
123