Hi US community! I’m looking for someone more expert than I on the Highway Classification projects to review this statewide edit by NE2. Any comments appreciated.
2 Likes
This changeset appears to be primarily about route relations, with some assorted changes along the way. Since you’re asking about highway classification, I looked at the 18 ways on which the highway=* value changed. I did not look at any other aspect of the changeset. Here are my cursory observations, grouped by road, which may need a further look by someone with local knowledge:
-
South Bynum Road was a dangling highway=secondarythat got pruned tohighway=tertiary. North Bynum Road continues to the north ashighway=residentialbut should probably also be upgraded totertiaryto match. -
The Highway 370/northbound I-270 ramp was downgraded from highway=motorwaytohighway=motorway_link, possibly to end the motorway at the end of Highway 370. There was some debate a few years back as to whether the ramps at a trumpet interchange should all be link ways or whether some should be non-link ways. Sometimes we can resolve the matter based on zero mile markers, but there don’t appear to be any here. This is at the big-numbered end of the highway, so we can’t just measure out the zero point based on the exit numbers. I’d consider this a gray area. -
A stretch of Highway 179 got upgraded from
highway=trunktohighway=motorwaybetween U.S. 54 and West Edgewood Drive. This stretch is connected to U.S. 54, which is undeniablyhighway=motorway, so the criteria limiting when we can map a motorway island may not apply. Even if it would apply, this stretch is 2.7 miles long (4.4 km), barely over the minimum of 2 miles. Another gray area. -
Northbound Earth City Expressway was downgraded from highway=trunktohighway=secondary, leaving only the southbound lanes ashighway=trunk. This is a bit pedantic. Thehighway=*values that represent functional classification would be based on the full width of the roadway, not an individual carriageway. Ditto with Armour Road. -
The Highway 76/265 slip lane got downgraded from
highway=secondarytohighway=secondary_link. This is correct. -
The Springfield Airport Entrance got upgraded from
highway=residentialtohighway=tertiaryto keep the West Kearney Streethighway=tertiaryfrom dangling. Fine I guess, thoughhighway=unclassifiedwould also be justified here.
3 Likes
I reverted this part of the edit, seemed obvious enough to do it remotely.
(famous last words)
1 Like
I figured out why that specific segment was downgraded. It’s technically a stub in disguise, assuming that the trunk road continues on the freeway loop ramp. I think this should remain secondary for the sole purpose of connectivity.
That’s the thing: I think most mappers would make both carriageways match. If southbound in isolation would be highway=trunk but northbound would be secondary, then both would be trunk. The guidelines are silent on this point, but it comes up every now and then on Slack. Here’s a recent forum discussion about it:
Anyways, I’d emphasize that this is a really minor issue with the changeset, considering all the valid changes it includes. I don’t think there was any intention to slip something under the radar. We hadn’t really considered this issue years ago when @NE2 was last active.
(For the international community reading this, note that trunk is a functional classification in the U.S. We don’t tie any traffic rules to it.)
2 Likes
I am writing to object to @Flap_Slimy_Outward starting an edit war and (again) editing the map without community consensus. This time, on this way.
Verision 6, Status quo from two years ago
Version 7, Edit from @NE2 that we are discussing here
Version 8, edit from @Mateusz_Konieczny restoring the status quo based on @Minh_Nguyen’s analysis
Version 9, edit from @Flap_Slimy_Outward reverting @Mateusz_Konieczny 's edit
This is exactly the behavior that the US community has been complaining about from @Flap_Slimy_Outward.
1 Like
I’m not sure I see what the problem is?
Where you got unanimous permission from community to change road classification ?
You were placed under restriction to get such permission for every single change of road classification you would make.
See
and earlier
Pinging @SomeoneElse and requesting issuance of block
I thought this was common sense… that highway classifications shouldn’t leave stubs like that?
See, now the problem is that you have a trunk stub that technically goes nowhere. The highway it ends at is a motorway link that leads in the opposite direction. Therefore, this short stub does not lead to any trunk roads or motorways; thus, it should be re-downgraded to secondary.
I don’t understand any objections to this…
Again, why should both carriageways match at a complex intersection like this, especially if the classifications already take care of that? This has still not been answered other than “Keep the status quo” (which, IMO, does not count).
I have re-reverted it here.
As a point of order, the status quo does count when we’re trying to avoid an edit war. Maybe you’re right, but this is not so urgent that you can’t wait for others to weigh in. You should’ve known this would be controversial, given the earlier thread in Utah.
Splitting the difference between the two carriageways is pedantic when both carriageways belong to the same street. You aren’t wrong, but you’re overthinking it. Highway classification is not a science, so some aspects are simply by convention. If you don’t like that, don’t concern yourself with classification.
It’s also slightly counterproductive. Maps at less than the highest zoom levels will need to layer the disparate lines in a manner that isn’t confusing. A sophisticated renderer that merges dual carriageways into a single line will be foiled by disparate classifications. Meanwhile, routers don’t need this precision. They won’t overshoot the on-ramp just because the classification continues on a bit. I agreed with pruning the dangling highway=secondary on South Bynum Road, but that was only a single carriageway.
1 Like
Haha, I’m a physics major, so maybe that explains some of the edits I’ve been doing.
However, here, the “main” trunk road and its spur aren’t even part of the same street! The Earth City Expressway and MO 141 end at the on-ramp I mentioned before, while the name “Missouri Bottom Road” continues left at the intersection with the off-ramp. (Is this what you mean by “Highway classification is not a science”?)
I’m only saying that I’d expect Earth City Expressway to match Earth City Expressway and Armour Road to match Armour Road.
You are under special restrictions for some types of editing, see Reviewing recent changes by Flap Slimy Outward - #36 by SomeoneElse
I am currently active in that thread, discussing with the local Colorado community as to how to fix the US 50 relations. (No response yet.)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/20961.
If you think something is incorrect, please discuss it, don’t immediately reach for the reverter.
An appropriate response would have been to comment on https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/185884848, or in the forum where that edit was announced, or preferably both.
2 Likes
Well, I did do that.
can you link to place where you asked for feedback before you made discussed edit and gave people few days at least to reply before making edit?
(larger mass-scale edits would require more than few days)
also, please link such discussion in edit description, changeset tags or changeset comments
I didn’t, not before the edit anyway. (Except maybe this?)
This wasn’t a mass edit, though. Instead, it was a single intersection focusing on a single way and surrounding ones.
then you have answer for
answer is that you in fact have not asked before edit, and that thread already had disapproval of such edit anyway by the time you posted
please reread Reviewing recent changes by Flap Slimy Outward - #36 by SomeoneElse
Can you please NOT change any name or any ref or any classification of any highway in the US or elsewhere until you have proved yourself more capable of “reading the room” when it comes to working out what is appropriate and what not.
People have been incredibly polite with you - perhaps more than you deserve, but there comes a time when we all have to recognise the cost of the rework that you are causing the community.
If you like to make one of these sorts of changes, please bounce it off this forum (or the DWG) first, and don’t proceed without unamimous approval.
Again, I thought this would be pretty obvious. But I guess even “obvious” edits are off the table, too 
Not only have I read it multiple times (and have it bookmarked!), but you seem to ignore the fact that other edits I’ve made have, in fact, linked directly to it.
As an aside: On one such thread, another user said this (which, from my POV, equated “community discussion” with “it won’t get approved anyway,” discouraging me from community discussions rather than encouraging it):
The bolded part is the key here. It not only discourages bulk editing (which I’ve done much less of recently) but also discourages discussion itself, which is the root of these problems here.