Author Topic: Adding other important routes?  (Read 1279 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:45:56 pm
Adding other important routes?
« on: October 31, 2016, 10:08:19 pm »
I'd like to add the Ambassador Bridge in Detroit-Windsor to usasf. It's not technically a freeway, although it is controlled-access from I-75/I-96 to its south end at ON 3. James told me he'd go along with whatever the group thought.


Since this tunnel made it to the England list, despite not being a freeway or an A road (at least not a signed route), I'd like to offer it as precedent.



« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 05:33:56 am by michih »
Clinched:

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1721
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 11:23:56 pm
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #1 on: October 31, 2016, 11:00:34 pm »
I'm worried about this becoming a slippery slope, and would like to keep USASF to freeways as much as possible.

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 211
  • Last Login:Today at 04:15:05 am
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2016, 04:26:22 am »
If Michigan (and Ontario) had a viable secondary highway set, I'd say the Ambassador Bridge should go there. Otherwise, it should go in the main MI and ON sets. However, the bridge falls in the same grey area as the Bridge of the Gods and Hood River Bridge in OR/WA (and I'd venture the bridge and connecting roads between I-75 and ON 17 would as well).

Offline si404

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 724
  • Last Login:Today at 03:04:47 am
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2016, 05:36:46 am »
Since this tunnel made it to the England list, despite not being a freeway or an A road (at least not a signed route), I'd like to offer it as precedent.
It's a primary route that only isn't an A road due to being a private road (owned by a publicly owned company - it's a massive legal quirk). Ordinance Survey now even map it as an extension of the A41. And I put it in gbna, not eursf.

Offline cl94

  • TM Collaborator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 24
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:49:02 pm
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2016, 11:05:26 pm »
There would be precedent for putting a non-freeway in usasf. Look at the Bronx River, Lake Ontario, Saw Mill or Taconic Parkways in New York. Both have a lot of at-grades, but are thrown into usasf. The Ambassador Bridge is a limited-access named road. The only major examples of those in this country that aren't part of a numbered system are a few at-grade NY Parkways.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:45:56 pm
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #5 on: November 02, 2016, 09:13:30 pm »
If Michigan (and Ontario) had a viable secondary highway set, I'd say the Ambassador Bridge should go there. Otherwise, it should go in the main MI and ON sets. However, the bridge falls in the same grey area as the Bridge of the Gods and Hood River Bridge in OR/WA (and I'd venture the bridge and connecting roads between I-75 and ON 17 would as well).

Thanks for reminding me where the similar bridges were in the US; I knew I'd read of a comparable situation but couldn't recall where it was. Is there a precedent for including privately-owned bridges in state route sets? It looks like you haven't added Bridge of the Gods and the Hood River Bridge to usaor & usawa yet, so is this still being discussed?
Clinched:

Offline Bickendan

  • TM Collaborator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 211
  • Last Login:Today at 04:15:05 am
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2016, 04:28:08 pm »
It was last discussed and nixed by Tim when the Oregon state routes went live back in 2006/2007, so there hasn't been any real discussion about them.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:07:35 pm
Re: MI-ON: Ambassador Bridge
« Reply #7 on: September 01, 2018, 07:02:02 am »
Is there a precedent for including privately-owned bridges in state route sets? It looks like you haven't added Bridge of the Gods and the Hood River Bridge to usaor & usawa yet, so is this still being discussed?

Is there a precedent meanwhile? I have a situation in Austria which is a bit similar... and not included.

I would not include any non-freeway to a select freeway system.

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:07:35 pm
Re: Adding other important routes?
« Reply #8 on: September 02, 2018, 05:36:06 am »
I'd like to have a system for "other important routes" or "other interesting routes".

Maybe we could go this way:
OSM "Tag:highway=trunk" = "Select Freeway" system, e.g. usasf, cansf, eursf
OSM "Tag:highway=primary" = "Select Other Routes" system, e.g. usaor, canor, euror

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:07:35 pm
Re: Adding other important routes?
« Reply #9 on: September 02, 2018, 05:40:22 am »
A similar discussion about "River Crossings" can be found here: http://forum.travelmapping.net/index.php?topic=2550

My proposal would include important River Crossings but would not include ferries and less important, short or arguable or "crossings".

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 583
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:November 13, 2018, 12:17:17 am
Re: Adding other important routes?
« Reply #10 on: September 02, 2018, 05:41:56 am »
I'd like to have a system for "other important routes" or "other interesting routes".

Maybe we could go this way:
OSM "Tag:highway=trunk" = "Select Freeway" system, e.g. usasf, cansf, eursf
OSM "Tag:highway=primary" = "Select Other Routes" system, e.g. usaor, canor, euror

That tagging can be hit and miss in OSM, especially in the USA. :/

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:07:35 pm
Re: Adding other important routes?
« Reply #11 on: September 02, 2018, 05:46:00 am »
But the color behind the tag specifies the "importance" and not-tagged routes look the same so that we can identify the routes.
I don't wanna go into "OSM developer mode" and handle tags but wanna look at the color only. This way, we have a "clear" way to distinguish routes to be included or excluded.

Offline mapcat

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 10:45:56 pm
Re: Adding other important routes?
« Reply #12 on: September 02, 2018, 11:44:44 am »
I don't want to depend on OSM to define anything for TM.
Clinched:

Offline michih

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:07:35 pm
Re: Adding other important routes?
« Reply #13 on: September 02, 2018, 12:13:40 pm »
I don't think that we would "depend" but it could be a guideline. Do you have any better idea?

We are used to discuss a lot but we often do not make a decision. That's why I try to bring us going ahead...