The Edit
this mass edit proposal is intended to add the Key:designation - OpenStreetMap Wiki tag to all current Primary, Secondary and Trunk Roads. example, all Secondary Roads will additionally carry the “designation”-“Secondary” tag.
Method
I plan to do this with JOSM with 3 edits 1 for Primary Roads 1 for Secondary Roads and 1 for Trunk roads. If there are any hardware limits like memory or the data is to large it will have to be broken down into more edits. It will be done by “way” queries in overpass turbo.
Errors
while I was banned from editing there were some changes made to some roads which no longer are tagged as the legal classification.
If and After the mass edit is done the above roads will have to be manually changed accordingly.
When
I plan on doing this in two weeks from now which will be 17th of March 24’. This will only go ahead if approved by our Australian DWG member.
If the idea is to have highways tagged with the state government’s classifications, wouldn’t it be best to actually use their classifications for this, that’s what designation= is generally used for when on roads in other countries.
Currently, designation= is used in Australia to highlight shared paths and shared zones, would this edit conflict with that potential existing use?
Seems to be a duplication of values on many current features so what is the purpose of adding it if it’s identical to existing highway tags? OK, on the ones that differ (maybe) but I still don’t see how it will be used by data consumers.
designation= is a legal classification, not any official administrative classification especially for planning only. You will see Key:designation - OpenStreetMap Wiki using HFCS= etc.
IMO it counts as a mechanical edit given the large scale of changes (my interpretation until my Q about that is answered), and the impossibility of manual review of all of them.
The Roads dataset from DataSA has all roads in SA classified with different terms than what OSM uses, there’s no point just doubling up a tag so that highway=secondary includes designation=secondary. If you want the government classification tagged, I’d use those actual classifications.
the point is to be able to have the legal classification, and also allow to the actual highway classification tag changed according to OSM rules and guidelines as desired.
But what’s the need for having the government classification tagged? Is there any data consumer who uses it, who wouldn’t just utilise the DataSA dataset itself? It seems redundant, confusing, and unnecessary, based on the current commentary.
I’m just trying to get an idea for the purpose of this import, considering the lack of wiki page documenting the import as per Import/Guidelines - OpenStreetMap Wiki.
I hadn’t yet formed an opinion as to whether I support or oppose this, but I’m not really favouring an import with no real documentation and some level of opposition/hostility to the community asking questions.
It seems like a straightforward question to me - and one that I’d expect that you’d be able to answer in a more reasonable way rather than:
OpenStreetMap is a community. If you think that the way that we do something is wrong or needs to be changed in some way you need to be able to discuss it in an adult way and persuade people to your point of view. You haven’t been successful with either of those. Despite this, people have have been more open to your ideas than many OSM communities worldwide would have been.
There is actually plenty of precedent for storing “legal status” separately from an OSM highway value (the 3 jurisdictions of the UK are one example, but there are others elsewhere). However, I wouldn’t expect that you’d translate Data SA’s road values into OSM’s before doing so, and if the data from Data SA is easily available and can legally be combined with OSM it can certainly be argued that there’s no benefit from having that data here too.