Changeset: 56539662
upgraded connective FM/RM roads to secondary
Closed by clay_c
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (13367 en) |
---|---|
source | Texas Orthophoto |
Discussion
-
Comment from Baloo Uriza
I still have some concerns about this mass attempt at priority creep on the highway=* tag. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Secondary_tag
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Tertiary_highways
-
Comment from MikeN
I agree about concerns with mass priority creep. DOT / Government classifications do not directly translate to an OSM classification. Routers will still select a road when it best matches the travel itinerary and mode.
-
Comment from clay_c
Alright, I'll put a pause to this change for a bit. I want to continue this discussion later, though right now I think I just need to take a break. Thanks for being patient.
-
Comment from Baloo Uriza
No problem, thanks for being open on this. Last time there was someone who went a little too strict with the tagging, we ended up with the entire US highway system tagged trunk nationwide
-
Comment from clay_c
Alright, I'm back and my head's clear. Thanks for giving me some time.
I want to make sure we're on the same page with a few things. I'm avoiding being strict on tagging, and there's a few FM/RM roads I've tagged higher than secondary as well as state/US highways lower than primary. It's still context-dependent.
After spending a lot of time reviewing untouched TIGER data in various parts of Texas that I've visited, I've come across frustratingly many cases where FM/RM roads were tagged as tertiary and needed to be upgraded, whether urban or rural. It doesn't seem to matter where—there's always going to be something (e.g. county roads, small city thoroughfares) that fits in between FM/RM roads and residential roads in the local hierarchy.
And, as state highways are generally (but not always) higher-priority and longer-distance than FM/RM roads, and roughly as connective and well-maintained as US highways, I upgraded many of them to match that.
Though admittedly I ended up indiscriminatingly upgrading a lot of FM/RM roads that don't connect any population centers at all. And this is clearly a case where FM/RM roads fit in as tertiary on the hierarchy. My bad.
Going forward, I'll be more conservative changing FM/RM roads to secondary. And in the end I'll review the FM/RM roads I previously upgraded, and downgrade the ones that don't connect population centers.
How does this sound to y'all?
-
Comment from Baloo Uriza
RIght, generally a good idea to weight the local functionality with the classification to kind of rank it out. Like a major thoroughfare through a city (like, say, FM 2786 or CR 150 in Allen) might be underrated even as a secondary. But, say, FM 1885 or FM 920, northwest of Weatherford? Yeah, that's a pretty solid argument for a tertiary.
Let's look at TX 183 in Dallas. Yeah, that's solidly a primary. Long Avenue just north of that, it's kind of an iffy judgement call on secondary or primary given that it's clearly built to be a major boulevard, but at least on the bing imagery, yeah, not seeing much of anything there trafficwise.
Basically, the idea of US being primary, the highest level of state roads being secondary, and auxillary state, county and city roads would be a safe rule of thumb. Going higher or lower definitely suggests that they're operating "out of their usual league" to the average viewer, so to speak.
Regionally local to me, OK 66 (given it's overlap with US Historic 66), OK 117 (given it's large size), hit higher than base level. But not OK 11 between Skiatook and Pawhuska, even though that's the main way to get between Tulsa and the Osage Nation capitol, because there's not really anything else that differentiates it at all from any other state highway twisting through (and if I wanted to stick to more major highways, say, because it's icy and I want to stick to what's the least likely to get me killed while driving a moving truck with everything I own in it, I might zoom out a bit and see US 75 and US 60 instead, or if I'm feeling more adventurous and can reliably count on being able to self-rescue (or at least have AAA find me), I might pull a detour on CR 2561 through Nelagoney or bypass unexpected construction on US 60 by rat-running CR 2732).
Cultural significance can play a role, too, for example, Historic US 66 tends to still warrant a higher rating because of its continued significance and impact today, even if it's largely been bypassed and obsoleted by I 10, 15, 40, 44 and 55.
-
Comment from Baloo Uriza
Also, yeah, I'd fully agree that Texas makes for especially odd classification owing to it's huge number of auxiliary routes, of various and often nebulous significance, such as, despite signage, there is only one Ranch Road (RM 1), and *all* of the rest are properly FMs, and while the FMs are generally more important than the single Ranch Road, and those are more signifcant than Rec Roads and Park Roads, how do those two compare? Similarly, Loop and Spur? It's a hot mess down there, even before trying to figuring out how to squish that into unclassified/tertiary/secondary/primary while lacking quaternary, quinternary...
- Bell Road South (562939801), v1
- West Avenue (562939805), v1
- FM 1949 (562939808), v1
- US 287-F Business (562939810), v1
- US 287-F Business (562939813), v1
- FM 1207 (562939817), v1
- FM 1285 (562939819), v1
- South 3rd Street (562939823), v1
- State Highway 222 (562939827), v1
- FM 266 (562939830), v1
- FM 266 (562939831), v1
- 562939834, v1
- Farm to Market Road 600 (562939835), v1
- Farm to Market Road 600 (562939837), v1
- Farm to Market Road 1082 (562939839), v1
- E Avenue (562939842), v1
- FM 1082 (562939844), v1
- 562939846, v1
- FM 1085 (562939847), v1
- FM 1085 (562939850), v1
Relations (1-20 of 26)
- 1
- 2
- Ranch-to-Market Road 1919 (8040226), v1
- Farm-to-Market Road 3326 (8040227), v1
- Texas State Highway 222 (975265), v12
- Farm-to-Market Road 266 (1614267), v6
- Farm-to-Market Road 126 (1752723), v9
- US 287 Business (F - Vernon, TX) (1948045), v9
- Farm-to-Market Road 381 (1969862), v7
- Farm-to-Market Road 600 (1973831), v10
- Farm-to-Market Road 1207 (2683330), v2
- Farm-to-Market Road 2074 (2683335), v2
- Farm-to-Market Road 1949 (2683360), v3
- Farm-to-Market Road 765 (2700625), v8
- Farm-to-Market Road 1085 (2706543), v5
- Farm-to-Market Road 1226 (2715335), v3
- Farm-to-Market Road 1082 (2715338), v3
- Farm-to-Market Road 2976 (2716737), v3
- Farm-to-Market Road 1814 (2718438), v3
- Farm-to-Market Road 1285 (2718557), v2
7128615, v27128614, v2
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |