Proposal talk:Motorway indication

Mapnik style modification

I realize that the necessary modifications to fully implement this in Mapnik would be exceedingly complex, at least without Cascadenik. However, I am willing to attempt at least minimal modifications so that motorway=yes at least makes a road look like a motorway. Vid the Kid 04:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Substandard?

I don't think this value is a good idea. Perhaps half the Interstates are substandard in one way or another, such as bridges being a foot too low or ramps being too tight. Even those built today sometimes have design variances approved by FHWA. --NE2 04:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor infractions like that are not what I had in mind. I was thinking of roads that are so outdated, even a non-engineer would say "wow they really need to redesign this." I actually can't think of any examples which I know of personally — at least, not that still exist today. The wikipedia article on that A3 in Italy sounds like a pretty good example, though. Vid the Kid 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the central portion of the Colonial Parkway? We could also include "Jersey freeways" where there is unrestricted private access but absolutely no cross traffic. But it seems that one person's substandard is another person's non-freeway and vice versa. Some would call two-lane freeways substandard; others would just say they're normal for low-traffic freeways. --NE2 23:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Vid, as for your "even a non-engineer would say "wow they really need to redesign this."" comment, I'll nominate I-70 between I-79 and I-76. 2 lanes each direction and stop signs at almost all on-ramps onto I-70. It needs to be redesigned badly. At least they are going to start to fix up the Southern I-70/I-79 interchange to provide a flyover from I-79 NB to I-70 WB which is badly needed because of the 270-degree ramp and almost no 3rd lane to get up to speed on which would badly be needed because of I-70/79 going uphill there. --Rickmastfan67 11:06, 10 September 2010 (BST)

Already exists (with an inferior name)?

See motorroad=*. This implies access restrictions where currently used, but so does highway=motorway in those countries. --NE2 04:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was not aware of this tag. It's not significantly used in America. I took a look at the wiki page, and it does indeed seem quite similar. However, it will take me time to fully grasp the precise meaning and flavor of the terms used there, before I can determine whether the "Motorway indication" proposal is redundant to it. If so, a possible outcome might be to modify the proposal to simply adding motorroad=substandard to the existing key, as well as further rendering enhancements and wider promotion of the key's usage. Vid the Kid 21:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like motorroad=* is primarily about side-property access and design speed, and doesn't specifically indicate whether at-grade intersections are allowed. Essentially, it's the same thing as expressway=* proposed over on Proposed features/Expressway indication. In combination with something like grade_separated=yes it could work for this proposal, too, but I'm not sure how accepted the latter tag is due to the lack of a wiki page. Vid the Kid 20:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Motorroad's access restrictions are about vehicles such as bicycles and shoes, not access from properties. --NE2 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We are using this tag in Hong Kong for both the physical design (no at-grade intersection, access only from ramps) and the access restriction - i.e. not legally a motorway but behaves like a motorway - if the road is foot / bicycle prohibited but not physically like a motorway, a simple foot=no and bicycle=no is enough. --Miklcct (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This is technically wrong. motorroad=* is a legal restriction. Shouldn't be used unless designated as such, cf bicycle_road=* and cyclestreet=*. There's a more appropriate access_control=* in some use, compared to the ambigious expressway=* (abandoned like here). Besides, even "access control" can have multiple meanings (personally prefer limiting it to direct driveway connection). Some tag about grade-separation and junction control would be ideal. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Why?

I think what's missing here is a why. Why would we want to tag a motorway something other than highway=motorway? Even if the surrounding portions are not trunk/primary, it seems to me that being built as a motorway essentially makes a road very important.

What might be better is a different name that means that it's built to motorway/freeway standards, but doesn't necessarily have motorway restrictions in those countries that have such. This would be useless in the US, but in the UK, for instance, it could be applied to the trunk roads that look just like motorways. --NE2 16:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is explained briefly in the Rationale section. Apparently you don't entirely agree with that reasoning. But if you've ever had to drive through Delaware County, Ohio on US 23 during the daytime, you might sort of get the point. Throughout almost the whole county, US 23 is a 4-lane, divided surface road. It's not even an expressway. For about a mile in the heart of the city of Delaware, the road is a freeway. But that section is so short, it provides almost no benefit. (A decade ago, they even replaced a free-flowing interchange at the south end with a couple of signals.) It may bypass several blocks of old urban area, but the suburban sprawl on either end totally overwhelms my perception of the road. I'll try not to get into too much of a rant, but I will say that the lack of access control in the area has made it impossible for me to take that part of US 23 seriously as a good route between Columbus and points north. Vid the Kid 20:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with the freeway section, and everything to do with the adjoining surface sections. Were the freeway not there, it would likely be at least slightly worse. --NE2 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)