Make highway _links same width?

[daganzdaanda]

Motorway_link seems to be the only "highway_link" that has it's own width.
Where a motorway_link meets a primary_link or secondary_link, the lower ranked road is wider.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/268585122
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/412383929

Would a single width for all possible highway_links be a good idea?

[Circeus]

I could have sworn primary_link used to be thinner... I agree they should all have a common width.

[matthijsmelissen]

Why should links be the same width? I think thinner links make complex junctions, such as this one easier to interpret.

[matkoniecz]

I think thinner links make complex junctions, such as this one easier to interpret.

@math1985 Yes, and @daganzdaanda wants to apply the same to _primary and _secondary links. Compare

openstreetmap-carto/roads.mss

Line 785 in 5c630b3

line-width: @motorway-width-z12 - 2 * @casing-width-z12;

and

openstreetmap-carto/roads.mss

Line 820 in 5c630b3

line-width: @trunk-width-z12 - 2 * @casing-width-z12;

[matthijsmelissen]

Sorry, misread the request.

I think making all highway links thinner would be nice visually, but comes with quite heavy performance penalties (basically all highway rules need to be duplicated).

[aaronstar]

I support this notion.

[jojo4u]

Another example of secondary_link showing up on the other end of motorway_link: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/143164004

[matthijsmelissen]

Issue is still open in new road style.

[matthijsmelissen]

@matkoniecz Do you have any opinion on this issue?

[matkoniecz]

@math1985 Both avoiding code complexity and narrower _links are desirable. I would need to check how badly it would increase amount of code before I will have opinion whatever it is worth the cost.

[newnumber2]

@matkoniecz how would making trunk_link, primary_link, etc. narrower require writing a lot of code?

[Roadsguy]

It seems kinda silly for ramps from a trunk road to be so much thicker than ramps from a motorway. Consider the interchange complex with I-95, I-895, US 40, and Moravia Road in Baltimore, MD. There are three ramps from the trunk Moravia Rd. down to surface US 40. They are built to identical standards as the motorway_link ramps, yet current rendering makes them stick out too much.

[jojo4u]

@Roadsguy please provide a link or better a screenshot.

[Roadsguy]

Here is a link to the area I mentioned. As you can see, some of the ramps in this interchange complex are mapped with trunk_link, which makes them thicker on the map than the motorway_link ramps. However, there's no difference in the physical design of these ramps; it's all arbitrary because that's how trunk_links are set to render. Ideally they would render as thin as motorway_link.

primary_link and below don't seem to apply to ramps as often and might not need to be thinner as much as trunk_links do. However, in America (with surface expressways) and the UK/Europe (with trunk roads), trunk_links serving as exit ramps equivalent to motorway_link are very common.

[newnumber2]

In my opinion ALL "links" should be the same width, both in the renderer and in every editor, and should be the width of the current "motorway links". This seems like an awful inconsistency and should be fixed, the sooner the better. It's especially bad where a trunk, primary, secondary or tertiary link has a junction with a motorway link. I've seen this so many times.

[jengelh]

Discrepancy (51.55647/9.88576, z17); shows motorway_link, trunk_link and secondary_link:

[kocio-pl]

Closed by #3374 - we just left tertiary links different to not mix them with smaller roads.

[LucFreitas]

Leaving different tertiary links causes oddities in connections to higher-order tertiary links.

[kocio-pl]

Thanks for reporting. I'm aware that there are places like this, there is no way to avoid problems with different width of roads in general.

[jeisenbe]

I would like to make the tertiary links the same width as secondary links.

I noticed that there is no width for tertiary-links while working on the new code for highway=construction.

I think there was a concern in #3374 that tertiary links would then look similar to highway=unclassified and =residential, because tertiary is currently rendered in white, as are these other minor roads.

However, I don't see this as a problem. Tertiary links are usually very short slip roads joining a tertiary road to a small road (eg highway=unclassified). Having them thinner will make the map more readable.

[Roadsguy]

I agree. The database isn't affected, and you can tell from context when looking at the rendered map what it actually is.

…

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 5:30 AM jeisenbe ***@***.***> wrote: I would like to make the tertiary links the same width as secondary links. I noticed that there is no width for tertiary-links while working on the new code for highway=construction. I think there was a concern in #3374 <#3374> that tertiary links would then look similar to highway=unclassified and =residential, because tertiary is currently rendered in white, as are these other minor roads. However, I don't see this as a problem. Tertiary links are usually very short slip roads joining a tertiary road to a small road (eg highway=unclassified). Having them thinner will make the map more readable. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1109 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJXuAfmOZw65siunVQSpmAG0v5duFKtpks5u4NrbgaJpZM4C18KZ> .

-- —Albert Pundt