You are not logged in.

#1 2013-09-24 00:59:39

RocketMan
Member
Registered: 2012-05-04
Posts: 249

Defining classifications below trunk

Removed

Last edited by RocketMan (2015-06-29 10:59:24)

Offline

#2 2013-09-25 16:33:42

Bernhard Hiller
Member
Registered: 2011-05-10
Posts: 1,056

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Soemthing like that.

I'd prefer to add some more description regarding the meaning / importance of each classification level.

True, most wiki pages on primary just say that primaries are subject to the central/national administration, while secondarires/tertiaries are subject to regional/provincial administzration. Only the German page on primaries notes that other roads which are important are also primaries; and a feature stated there is a vast number of vehicles using the raod (more than 10,000 a day).

Let's add for primaries:
- built for long-distance travel, typically beyond province borders
- 2 or more lanes, wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other without reducing speed
- often extra lanes on the side ("shoulder" ?), comfortably wide for bicycels and motorcycles
- paved (asphalt or concrete)

For secondaries:
- major roads inside a province
- 2 lanes
- paved (asphalt or concrete)

For tertiaries:
- connect two or more villages/hamlets
- often narrow
- most of them paved, but unpaved roads are possible

I guess that could agree well with your numbering scheme in most cases - and for the remaining cases, we'll have a description why we do something different.

Offline

#3 2013-09-25 20:15:55

RocketMan
Member
Registered: 2012-05-04
Posts: 249

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Removed

Last edited by RocketMan (2015-06-29 10:59:37)

Offline

#4 2013-09-28 02:56:29

Paul_012
Member
Registered: 2011-08-05
Posts: 211

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Seems okay. We may need a separate guideline for urban roads, since the considerations there are rather different.

Offline

#5 2013-10-03 10:48:15

Bernhard Hiller
Member
Registered: 2011-05-10
Posts: 1,056

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

I've updated the wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Thailand). Please take a look at the wording there, and correct it or refine it.

I think 4 digit roads need an extra hint. It is the most "inconsistent" type of roads, because freshly built roads typically get a 4digit number, regardless of their importance and physical features. In rare cases, they meet trunk standards (4015 south east of Nakhon Sri Thammarat, or 4047 east of Phattalung), and sometimes they are just provincial roads of low importance (i.e. tertiary). I'd like to add a "warning" to that section, that a conclusion from 4digits to "secondary" is not very reliable.

In case of the "blue sign" 4digit raods, I'd like to emphasize that the two Thai letters for the provincial code are part of the reference number and *must not* be omitted - better add "xx" as provincial code when you cannot write it than omitting it completey.

Offline

#6 2013-10-11 20:02:10

Paul_012
Member
Registered: 2011-08-05
Posts: 211

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Bernhard Hiller wrote:

In case of the "blue sign" 4digit raods, I'd like to emphasize that the two Thai letters for the provincial code are part of the reference number and *must not* be omitted - better add "xx" as provincial code when you cannot write it than omitting it completely.

I wholly agree. I've come across a lot of rural highways that have their letter prefixes missing. This is one thing that will have to be manually checked when converting highways to follow the new guidelines. Some of them are identifiable by their having the "wrong" first digit for the region.

Offline

#7 2013-10-11 20:23:32

RocketMan
Member
Registered: 2012-05-04
Posts: 249

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Removed

Last edited by RocketMan (2015-06-29 10:59:50)

Offline

#8 2013-10-23 17:01:42

Bernhard Hiller
Member
Registered: 2011-05-10
Posts: 1,056

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Updated the wiki page. Please look at it, and correct/refine it.

Offline

#9 2013-10-23 18:15:30

RocketMan
Member
Registered: 2012-05-04
Posts: 249

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Removed

Last edited by RocketMan (2015-06-29 11:00:02)

Offline

#10 2013-12-15 03:48:32

AlaskaDave
Member
From: Homer, Alaska ; Chiang Mai
Registered: 2013-09-21
Posts: 440
Website

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Bernhard Hiller wrote:

In case of the "blue sign" 4digit raods, I'd like to emphasize that the two Thai letters for the provincial code are part of the reference number and *must not* be omitted - better add "xx" as provincial code when you cannot write it than omitting it completey.

On this topic I'd like to discuss exactly how to add those two-character abbreviations. Current practice seems to include the "." following the abbreviation and before the number part of the ref. But sometimes there is a space following the "."  Sometimes not.

I'm guilty of not adding the "." in the refs for some tertiary roads I've mapped. I never could see the reasoning behind this and still don't, except that the signage does include it. It only indicates an obvious abbreviation after all. My reluctance stemmed from my assumption that searching for a route number that has no spaces delimiting it from the two-character province abbreviation would be difficult. However, if the dot must be there in order to correspond with the signage, then should there be a space between the province code and the route number?

So my question is, should we include a space between the "." and the route number?

I've started to edit the tertiary roads in my neighborhood that have no included "." but would like this issue clarified before continuing.

Regards...

Last edited by AlaskaDave (2013-12-15 03:49:55)

Offline

#11 2013-12-15 20:01:20

stephankn
Moderator
Registered: 2010-05-04
Posts: 622

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

I always tagged it the same way than on the sign. 2-character province, then a dot, then the 4-digit number.

Having a space instead the dot does not make it wrong, does it?
I personally just followed the writing on the sign so it might be easier for people to recognize. And hopefully the people DORR thought a bit before deciding to add a dot on each sign they produce. So it must be the correct way of spelling it.

Any input from our native speakers?

Stephan

Offline

#12 2013-12-16 10:35:55

Paul_012
Member
Registered: 2011-08-05
Posts: 211

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

I never noticed if the signage included a space after the dot. This somewhat-official-looking list seems to suggest that the DRR prefers the format "นบ.3021" (without a space).

Having spaces after full stops/periods is a general typographic convention (with lots of exceptions).

Offline

#13 2013-12-17 01:16:08

AlaskaDave
Member
From: Homer, Alaska ; Chiang Mai
Registered: 2013-09-21
Posts: 440
Website

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Paul_012 wrote:

I never noticed if the signage included a space after the dot. This somewhat-official-looking list seems to suggest that the DRR prefers the format "นบ.3021" (without a space).

Having spaces after full stops/periods is a general typographic convention (with lots of exceptions).

I don't think it's critically important for readability either way although I tend to prefer including a space regardless of how the signage presents it. I am really only looking for consensus about how to do it in the future.

By the way, while we're on the topic, the tertiary roads whose numbers begin with "1" generally do not have a province prefix and as I understand it, are "national" or interprovince roads. Are there cases where that's not true? The numbering system is a bit convoluted because there is an example in the Wiki where there is a 4-digit number, in this case, 3278 which is a secondary highway beginning with "3" and no province prefix.

Regards,

Dave

Offline

#14 2013-12-17 04:13:52

Russ McD
Member
From: Hereford & Chiang Mai.
Registered: 2011-04-17
Posts: 289

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Consensus is important ....I have been using the two letter Thai abbreviation, followed by a space, then the 4 digit road number.
Until now I have been cut & pasting from the site
http://tambon.blogspot.com/2010/04/chan … tions.html
I hope the Province abbreviations are the same as the DRR are using !

I am in agreement with adding a dot/period/full stop after the Province abbreviation, by my vote goes to omitting the space.... not that it matters, but it allows for a marginally conciser display on the renderer and GPS.

Stephan - is there any way you can work your miracles and bring them all into line in one fell swoop, perhaps putting XX where a abbreviation does not exist. ... which in turn could generate an exception list which we cud quickly correct.

Finally, that looks like a pretty useful document that Paul has provided a link to ... as its in Thai I cant read it, and is it also copyrighted ?  One bit looks like it might provide official start & end coordinates of the Rural Rds, which wud be very useful !

Rgds, Russ.

Offline

#15 2013-12-18 12:01:29

Johnny Carlsen
Member
From: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Registered: 2011-02-19
Posts: 134

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Russ McD wrote:

Consensus is important ....I have been using the two letter Thai abbreviation, followed by a space, then the 4 digit road number.

I am in agreement with adding a dot/period/full stop after the Province abbreviation, by my vote goes to omitting the space.... not that it matters, but it allows for a marginally conciser display on the renderer and GPS.

Stephan - is there any way you can work your miracles and bring them all into line in one fell swoop, perhaps putting XX where a abbreviation does not exist. ... which in turn could generate an exception list which we cud quickly correct.

I can't add the "xx." where needed, but I can update the refs so they all follow the same standard. But what should the standard be?

a) xx.1234 (dot)
b) xx. 1234 (dot-space)
c) xx 1234 (space)
d) xx1234 (no dot, no space)
e) something else?

I personally vote for (a) for these reasons:
- It is currently used the most
- It is what is described in the wiki
- It is what is used by other maps in Thailand: http://map.longdo.com
- It seems to be the standard in at least one official looking document (Paul_012)

I don't think it is hugely important what we choose as long as we can agree on something - if needed we can change the standard in the future, though it will be more confusing for people not following these discussions.

Last edited by Johnny Carlsen (2013-12-18 12:02:58)

Offline

#16 2013-12-19 00:05:10

stephankn
Moderator
Registered: 2010-05-04
Posts: 622

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Hi Russ and Johnny,

are you saying that all 4-digit roads are actually maintained by the Department or Rural Roads?
I thought that only those with the code are done by them, while there exist other 4-digit highways which are maintained by the department of highways.

So either way I see no sense in adding a XX. in front of them. What would this help? In case something is missing it is easier to spot it missing if it's actually missing.
And in case we can't distinguish, we shouldn't change it automated.

Stephan

Offline

#17 2013-12-19 01:17:58

AlaskaDave
Member
From: Homer, Alaska ; Chiang Mai
Registered: 2013-09-21
Posts: 440
Website

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Johnny Carlsen wrote:
Russ McD wrote:

Consensus is important ....I have been using the two letter Thai abbreviation, followed by a space, then the 4 digit road number.

I am in agreement with adding a dot/period/full stop after the Province abbreviation, by my vote goes to omitting the space.... not that it matters, but it allows for a marginally conciser display on the renderer and GPS.

Stephan - is there any way you can work your miracles and bring them all into line in one fell swoop, perhaps putting XX where a abbreviation does not exist. ... which in turn could generate an exception list which we cud quickly correct.

I can't add the "xx." where needed, but I can update the refs so they all follow the same standard. But what should the standard be?

a) xx.1234 (dot)
b) xx. 1234 (dot-space)
c) xx 1234 (space)
d) xx1234 (no dot, no space)
e) something else?

I personally vote for (a) for these reasons:
- It is currently used the most
- It is what is described in the wiki
- It is what is used by other maps in Thailand: http://map.longdo.com
- It seems to be the standard in at least one official looking document (Paul_012)

I don't think it is hugely important what we choose as long as we can agree on something - if needed we can change the standard in the future, though it will be more confusing for people not following these discussions.

I personally vote for (c)

A period is never seen in signs for an abbreviation in the US (and I'm guessing most other countries either), on road signs or postal addresses. It's completely redundant and adds a character that takes extra space to display. I realize this is Thailand we're talking about but I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

Last edited by AlaskaDave (2013-12-20 00:53:56)

Offline

#18 2013-12-19 03:36:07

Johnny Carlsen
Member
From: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Registered: 2011-02-19
Posts: 134

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

stephankn wrote:

Hi Russ and Johnny,

are you saying that all 4-digit roads are actually maintained by the Department or Rural Roads?
I thought that only those with the code are done by them, while there exist other 4-digit highways which are maintained by the department of highways.

So either way I see no sense in adding a XX. in front of them. What would this help? In case something is missing it is easier to spot it missing if it's actually missing.
And in case we can't distinguish, we shouldn't change it automated.

Stephan

Hi Stephan,

Absolutely not, I am saying I can't do that. The reason being that there is no way for me to tell whether it is a 1234 for xx.1234 road. What I am offering is to make the roads that already have an been correctly marked as DRR consistent.

Offline

#19 2013-12-19 03:43:55

Johnny Carlsen
Member
From: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Registered: 2011-02-19
Posts: 134

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

AlaskaDave wrote:
Johnny Carlsen wrote:

a) xx.1234 (dot)
b) xx. 1234 (dot-space)
c) xx 1234 (space)
d) xx1234 (no dot, no space)
e) something else?

I personally vote for (b)

A period is never seen in signs for an abbreviation in the US (and I'm guessing most other countries either), on road signs or postal addresses. It's completely redundant and adds a character that takes extra space to display. I realize this is Thailand we're talking about but I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

Option (b) has one more character than option (a) which you are arguing against. I think you mean option (c) which is just a space or (d) which has nothing?

Offline

#20 2013-12-19 07:41:28

Johnny Carlsen
Member
From: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Registered: 2011-02-19
Posts: 134

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

AlaskaDave wrote:

A period is never seen in signs for an abbreviation in the US (and I'm guessing most other countries either), on road signs or postal addresses. It's completely redundant and adds a character that takes extra space to display. I realize this is Thailand we're talking about but I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

OK, I did some further research and the Department of Rural Roads which names the roads uses option (a) as well:
http://gis1.drr.go.th/module/mng_report … prov_name=

If these really are the official names of the road, isn't that what we should use?

Offline

#21 2013-12-19 08:09:08

Paul_012
Member
Registered: 2011-08-05
Posts: 211

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

I'll also support option (a), for the reasons given by Johnny Carlsen.


AlaskaDave wrote:

By the way, while we're on the topic, the tertiary roads whose numbers begin with "1" generally do not have a province prefix and as I understand it, are "national" or interprovince roads. Are there cases where that's not true? The numbering system is a bit convoluted because there is an example in the Wiki where there is a 4-digit number, in this case, 3278 which is a secondary highway beginning with "3" and no province prefix.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of cases where that's not true. National highways in the North all begin with 1, but in the Northeastern, Central and Southern Regions, they begin with 2, 3 and 4, respectively, so your observation isn't applicable in other regions. Moreover, rural roads (with their xx. prefixes) may begin with any number from 1 to 6, depending on the level of the roads they connect. ลป.1002, for example, begins with 1, as it branches off the one-digit Route 1. (Rural roads branching off two-digit national highways begin with 2, and so on.) The only conclusion we can make is that four-digit routes beginning with 5 or 6 should have an xx. prefix.


Russ McD wrote:

Finally, that looks like a pretty useful document that Paul has provided a link to ... as its in Thai I cant read it, and is it also copyrighted ?  One bit looks like it might provide official start & end coordinates of the Rural Rds, which wud be very useful !

Thai government agencies generally do own copyright over works they create, but official reports are ineligible for copyright protection. I don't know where exactly that leaves this document, but using it as a reference (comparing the coordinates to roads on the map) should be okay regardless, as no creative aspect of the work is being reproduced. (Yes, those are the start/end coordinates of each route. I've found that typos are unfortunately quite common, however.)

Offline

#22 2013-12-19 08:17:03

stephankn
Moderator
Registered: 2010-05-04
Posts: 622

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

So in official publications it's a dot without a space. On the signs it's a dot without a space.
And we know that in written Thai there is quite little use of space characters as well.

Any good reason for not following that?

If Johnny is doing a mechanical edit to change it by removing the space, I'm fine with it.

Stephan

Offline

#23 2013-12-19 15:52:42

Russ McD
Member
From: Hereford & Chiang Mai.
Registered: 2011-04-17
Posts: 289

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Well it sounds like most of us agree (a) is the way to go ... a dot with no space.
And I do agree with Stephan that XX. can not be arbitrarily added, BUT can Johnny or Stephan at least take everything that currently has a province prefix, and convert it to the "nearly agreed upon"  XX.???? format.
.... At the very least, can you amend all of the ones I created if its still contentious ?
Russ

Offline

#24 2013-12-19 16:13:24

Johnny Carlsen
Member
From: Chiang Mai, Thailand
Registered: 2011-02-19
Posts: 134

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Russ McD wrote:

Well it sounds like most of us agree (a) is the way to go ... a dot with no space.
And I do agree with Stephan that XX. can not be arbitrarily added, BUT can Johnny or Stephan at least take everything that currently has a province prefix, and convert it to the "nearly agreed upon"  XX.???? format.
.... At the very least, can you amend all of the ones I created if its still contentious ?
Russ

I have script ready that will update a little more than a thousand refs which were easy to recognize by the script - some incorrect entries may be missed, but I'd rather do scripted updates on too little than too much.

But before I run anything, I need to know that we can all agree on a format. I believe the current votes are as follows:

(a) Johnny Carlsen, Russ McD, stephankn, Paul_012
(b)
(c) AlaskaDave
(d)
(e)

Last edited by Johnny Carlsen (2013-12-20 05:02:43)

Offline

#25 2013-12-20 00:55:21

AlaskaDave
Member
From: Homer, Alaska ; Chiang Mai
Registered: 2013-09-21
Posts: 440
Website

Re: Defining classifications below trunk

Johnny Carlsen wrote:
AlaskaDave wrote:
Johnny Carlsen wrote:

a) xx.1234 (dot)
b) xx. 1234 (dot-space)
c) xx 1234 (space)
d) xx1234 (no dot, no space)
e) something else?

I personally vote for (b)

A period is never seen in signs for an abbreviation in the US (and I'm guessing most other countries either), on road signs or postal addresses. It's completely redundant and adds a character that takes extra space to display. I realize this is Thailand we're talking about but I just wanted to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

Option (b) has one more character than option (a) which you are arguing against. I think you mean option (c) which is just a space or (d) which has nothing?

Er, yes, I meant (c)   :-(

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB