I’d like to resurrect this topic as, although there is a bit of ambiguity in the way that route numbers are defined officially, to me it is clear that the Register of National Roads (1998) can be easily captured in OSM.
The register does not mention specific roads but rather origins and destinations. If a motorway is built in between, in the vast majority of cases, the National Road (Εθνική Οδος - ΕΟ) still remains as the older road.
Examples:
EO89 is still a valid route number although Attiki Odos A6 is practically replacing it
EO78 is still a valid route number although Olympia Odos A5 opened recently
EO111 is still a valid route number for Μικρή Περιφερειακή Οδός Θεσσαλονίκης, although the road has been modified, and there is no EO111 signage in reality.
Is there any objection or examples indicating that we cannot apply the Register of National Roads (1998) in OSM ie make ref = ref:esye?
As you said, the EO route numbers are still valid for the roads even if (specifically) motorway is built in-between, which then becomes the “old national road”, but it keeps the number and another route number for the new road, usually A type.
It’s indeed an issue that the register, and generally the government gazette, never explain the routes, only the origins and destinations and few in-between destinations. This is mostly a problem for normal roads (aka not motorways), because when a new section is being built, it’s never mentioned anywhere that it becomes part of a route numbered road, it just gets assumed.
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
3
I am working on a revised list of National Roads on the wiki, with sources, but it is taking a long time because I am also working on implementing Windows 11 Enterprise via NTLite to remove the bloat (and oh boy, there’s a lot of bloat to remove).
There are two reasons why we use ref:esye=* and not ref=* for the “extra” road numbers from 1998 Register of National Roads (PDF), henceforth the “ESYE numbers”:
It was noted here in February 2018 that we do not use ref=* for ESYE numbers, because the 1998 list was not published in the Government Gazette (as far as we know).
According to this post on SkyscraperCity, the ESYE numbers were meant for road accident reports (see page 9 of the document, sentence «Πρώτο μέρος… α… β…»).
It is worth noting that the 1998 list has an inconsistency for the Western Entrance of Thessaloniki: page 13 claims the road is part of the ΕΟ1α for statistical purposes, but page 46 claims ΕΟ1β.
At most primary destinations, the national road ignores ring roads and bypasses, and either go through the city centre (like the ΕΟ39 in Sparta), or as close as practically possible due to pedestrianisation and one-way systems (such as the ΕΟ7/ΕΟ72/ΕΟ74 complex in Tripoli). However, there are some case-by-case exceptions (such as the ΕΟ3 bypassing Florina and Livadeia).
I can understand if you think the National Road numbering scheme today is very Kafkaesque and very easy to lose track of.
Could you please be respectful of other peoples work in the wiki before changing everything. We can ignore ESYE numbers for ref but keep them as relations etc for documentation.
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
5
The sandbox table on the wiki is a work in progress: it will take time to incorporate the destinations, notes and the primary/secondary/tertiary network data.
1 Like
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
6
Hello again,
I have been working on “classifying” the draft table according to the 1995 decrees at User:Ika-chan!/Sandbox - OpenStreetMap Wiki. I have not yet integrated the E-roads, but I am currently stuck, because the classifications from the 1995 decrees are not adding up compared with reality, even without the E-roads.
For example, how do I explain why we map the EO1 between Malakasa and Oinofyta as highway=secondary, even though the decree claims highway=primary (according to Ministerial Decision ΔΜΕΟ/ε/ο/1308/1995 (ΦΕΚ Β 30/19.01.1996), Section Β36α.)?
I don’t see why it shouldn’t simply be upgraded to highway=primary. Do you believe there is something on the ground to justify it? I think it was probably arbitrarily chosen really early on.
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
8
I think this 1995 decree thing is getting outrageously complicated if it doesn’t reflect today’s reality. I am considering dropping the 1995 classification thing on my draft table and just declaring the routes of a National Road that exist now, similar (but not the same) to User:Ika-chan!/Sandbox - OpenStreetMap Wiki, and then put the 1995 classifications in a new section for reference purposes (WIP: User:Ika-chan!/Sandbox - OpenStreetMap Wiki). Because this is a big change, I am seeking consensus here.
@JayCBR, what do you think? Sorry if I feel a bit exasperated in this post: I was hoping that the 1995 decree would have explained how we classify the roads today.
National Highways and Provincial Roads classification on a map https://doy.ggde.gr/. Of course we need to use common sense when mapping to better represent reality (e.g. making all side roads primary is too much).
It took a lot of effort to implement these on the map (especially EO1 since most of it was upgraded in several stages and is, therefore fragmented). I dont understand why you want to change it again (last time you messed everything up, pushing contributors away from the project)
What we need implementing is the classification of provincial roads as follows:
primary provincial =secondary
Secondary provincial =tertiary
As it better represents reality
1 Like
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
11
You do not need to be worried: I was not aware of that map before. Now that you pointed me to the map, I can now adjust the road network and the related tables to reflect the government source.
I don’t believe this map should be treated as gospel. Obvious reroutings that are still extant are afforded the same or higher status than their replacements, simply because they haven’t been reclassified by the government. No longer extant roads or roads that haven’t been maintained in decades because they lead to ghost towns or huge mining pits are still included on the map.
Of course this is just a general guide (i think the whole numbering and classification is obsolete but we re just trying to use official sources). I did propose before to ignore all and just classify them according to destinations (primary connecting cities and major POI, secondary for towns and minor POI, tertiary for villages).
PS: city - over 10000 or prefecture capital, town - over 2000 or municipality seat
2 Likes
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
15
@PeachyOne and @jimkats: Don’t worry, I understand that that map is not to be taken too literally, because OpenStreetMap is also meant for navigation.
2 Likes
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
16
For the record, the EO18 (relation) has been renumbered the EO19: this was first announced by Ministerial Decision DMEO/e/O/1308/1995 way back in 1995, and appears to have held up well, such as this decree (page 7608) and this decree (page 76164). The old number is moved to the ref:1963-1995=* key.
3 Likes
ika-chan
(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
17
There is currently some uncertainty at this changeset whether the EO38 has a branch that meets the EO5 at Agrinio:
According to me, the branch came into existence because both the EO5 and EO38 used pass through the heart of the city at 38.624765, 21.409455: however, later bypasses and pedestrianisation changed the alignments of both roads, indirectly creating the branch. In addition, the 1963 decree states that both the EO5 and EO38 pass through Agrinio, implying an intersection.
According to Panio, the EO38 starts from Lamia and finishes at Thermo. It reaches Agrinio but does not pass through it. Simply if you start from Lamia and want to go to Thermo, you have to pass near Agrinio city. There is no reason to be connected with EO5.
I am asking for more opinions before I touch anything: what do you think is the most appropriate situation?
According to me, the branch came into existence because both the EO5 and EO38 used pass through the heart of the city at 38.624765, 21.409455: however, later bypasses and pedestrianisation changed the alignments of both roads, indirectly creating the branch. In addition, the 1963 decree states that both the EO5 and EO38 pass through Agrinio, implying an intersection.
Makes more sense to me too for this exact argument.
I’m a bit puzzled with the presence of route number “EO5” on the Rio-Antirrio ferry connection. I understand that relation and route number continuity should be maintained, but does it make sense to have a route number on a ferry line?
I agree that it doesn’t make sense to have it mapped on the ferry line, even if it’s used as part of the old national road. Which still doesn’t make sense since the old national road starts from Antirrio and not Rio, but I assume the official name contains Rio to denote that it starts from the ferry terminals and not from the settlement’s center. Plus, it’s the issue that the relation should contain both ferry terminals (east and west).
