what do you guys think about making major highways green (trunk)? i ve been told navigator software works better with motorways trunk and primaries (giving them much more priority than secondary and tertiary)
motorroads are ambiguous anyway and not officially defined
so this is what i m thinking:
Old national highways should be secondary or primary, depending on how busy it is. That idea would free up primary for “other national roads and major avenues” without too many issues.
in fact former municipalities have become municipal units, so they are the same
level 8: municipal units (δημοτικές ενότητες)
level 9: municipal/local communities (δημοτικές/τοπικές κοινότητες) *former municipal compartments have become local communities
level 10: village/town/city limits
concerning road classification we should label them according to actual usage and quality, not just because they have a number (e.g. Larisa - Karditsa has no number but should be trunk)
the same goes about lower classes (there are a lot of unnumbered roads connecting towns, which they should be tertiary)
also an other thing: highways being replaced should be degraded (even if the new road isnt completed) e.g. Chalkidona - Edessa old road should be primary (only new parts should be trunk) also Evros Vertical Axis
Highways being replaced should only be downgraded when the corresponding project is complete and open. Downgrading them prior to completion is speculative, something that we do not do on OpenStreetMap.
Όπως βλέπω το έχετε πάρει πολύ “ζεστά”, δυστυχώς δεν μπορώ να συμμετάσχω γιατί είμαι πνιγμένος λόγω δουλειάς.
Αν δω κανένα στραβό όμως, θα μιλήσω
Γιάννης.
ΥΓ. Αυτά τα Καλλικρατικά ονόματα ποτέ δεν τα χώνεψα, γιαυτό όπου δείτε δικές μου διορθώσεις (παλιές) τα έχω όλα όπως τα έμαθα στο σχολείο. Δήμος, Νομός, Περιφέρεια κλπ.
The content under the section “Greek road hierarchy review” is only relevant to this. Please do not worry about the other sections, as they are old drafts.
I think the classification situation is something we need to address first: in a majority of countries (according to this), a given type of road or group of numbers are usually tied to one classification for sake of simplicity. I personally cannot think that I cannot improve further on the proposal that I have refined as of now: to assign National and Provincial roads to more than two categories of road each would just make it too complicated for all of us.
i think the topic of this revision is to make things easier for a map user, if we stick to a single category for national highways or provincial roads we fail to deliver this
it would be easy if we agree on some rules
your proposal is ok by me…but i have some thoughts i need to share:
-if a major highway (trunk) enters a city and becomes narrow and serves commercial traffic should be primary
-major provincial roads (connecting more than 2 locations) should be secondary by default (as long as the road is in decent condition)
-minor provincial roads (usually short, connecting villages) should be tertiary (unless unpaved)
-also secondary could be unnumbered provincial roads connecting towns (there are a lot of them)
I object to the deletion of the route relations (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/31960525): this is not something that I have not come up with on my own, but I do not think the relations should be deleted for routing and documentation reasons. However, if it is necessary, then what other way can we use to keep track of the progress?
Again, it appears you have deleted them without proper consultation. As for the numbers you have put on the wiki, we cannot use something that we just simply made up. The reason we use the 1998 routes is that they exist in law, and the motorways numbers because they are already on the signs.
well i didnt say to use these numbers…this is just how i think it should be (i state its fictional)
i had chats about route relations in the irc channel and everybody told me road relations are redundant (not included in navigation software, unnecessary use of resources)
relations wiki: “The more members are stuffed into a single relation, the harder it is to handle, the easier it breaks, the easier conflicts can show up and the more resources it consumes at database and server”
its ok to use route relations for public transport, hiking routes etc and maybe e-roads
E-road relations are a lot larger and complicated than our National Road relations. If ordering is the issue, then JOSM would help to spot the problems with relations (e.g. duplicated members, direction).
With all due respect, I recommend retaining the relations for documentation purposes: for example, at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Germany/Autobahn, you can see that Germany is okay in with having relations for roads, as long as it is marked clearly for obvious reasons. I do not see anything wrong with keeping the road route relations.
If route relations for national and provincial roads are to be phased out, then what alternatives are there to keep track of the tagging of road numbers in Greece, mainly for quality assurance purposes? Overpass Turbo may be one option, but how to I save queries into easy to use and persistent links? Also, there are timeout issues in Overpass, especially for long routes.
At present I have left the route relations due to uncertainty over its future or its replacement.
I am not sure if we need to classify every single avenue as a trunk road? If we go on and classify all roads solely by layout like what is going on in Karditsa, then we are going to end up with a rather messy network in my opinion (in the case of major roads, I prefer “Between cities” rather than “multi-lane dual carriageways with traffic lights or 2 lane highways with grade separated junctions”).
Even if we now drop our dependence on road numbers, there is a need for some “continuity”, especially since we decided not to use trunk just for the motor-roads.
