Brazil/Highway Classification in Brazil

This is a translation of the original in Portuguese. Please do not modify this, only amend translation corrections for better accuracy.

It should be noted that the terms "highway" and "road" are not always consistent in English. "highway" and "road" here translate "rodovia" and "estrada" respectively. As such, "highway" usually means paved road and "road" means any type of road, paved or not, but when used in contrast with "highway" might sometimes refer to "unpaved road" only.

Status	Approved
Draft	20/12/2019
Proposal	21/01/2020
Voting started	27/04/2020
Voting ended	13/05/2020 Extended until 29/05/2020
Result	Approved by majority

For modifications of the text initially presented during discussions, the following standard is adopted: deleted text added text

---

This proposal aims to revise the classification of highways in Brazil by adopting a standard that can be applied uniformly across the country’s highly heterogeneous territory.

Preliminary considerations

Before presenting the proposal itself, this section introduces key concepts and background considerations that guide it.

The problem with the current classification

Highway classification has always been a sensitive subject, often leading to heated debates. Over the years, several systems have been adopted that worked for their time but now require revision to better serve the entire country in a more consistent way. Let’s recall some of those earlier approved proposals:

• br2013 scheme - A proposal that introduced a flowchart-based system to road classification. It was broader than just motor vehicle routes, focusing mainly on the physical characteristics of (highways/)roads.

• Top 05 BR + 1 proposal (2017) - Suggested promoting five highways to trunk, mainly because there were almost no trunk highways mapped in Brazil at the time. However, this proposal did not replace the br2013 scheme, affecting only those specific highways.

From this, we conclude that the currently prevailing system is the br2013 scheme, except for the modifications introduced by the Top 05 BR + 1 proposal. Consequently, the current classification is based entirely on physical characteristics, which leads to functional inconsistencies in how highways and roads are classified.

The concept of topological continuity of highways

Although this may seem intuitive, many mappers still make mistakes regarding this principle. Therefore, it is essential to clarify that the classification of a highway must not be downgraded or upgraded as it passes through urban areas, nor when its physical characteristics change (such as surface type, width, or speed limit). Nor is it appropriate to raise the classification of highways in these sections. Downgrading sections of a highway creates “holes” in the mapped highway network, while upgrading creates isolated "islands." Thus, the continuity of highway classification must be preserved.

The hierarchy of road classifications should be such that, if only the most important highway class were shown, it should still be possible to travel continuously across the country. Each successive category expands the road network with less important roads.

Therefore, the most important highway network must function independently of the lower levels, whereas lower levels depend on higher ones. When the higher levels miss significant ways, the result is a fragmented network composed of disconnected road network islands.

The proposal

Illustration of the proposed highway classificaton

This proposal is grounded in the functional importance of highways and builds upon the reclassification proposal originally developed by the OSM community in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, extending that logic to the entire country.

Guiding approach

Highway classification is primarily based on the population size of the cities connected, with "city" referring to any municipal seat.

1. Cities with ≥ 200,000 inhabitants are entitled to highway connections classified as trunk. All other roads in their local network should have a maximum classification of primary. There are 154 cities of this size.
2. Cities with ≥ 20,000 and < 200,000 inhabitants are entitled to primary connections, with other local roads limited to secondary. There are 1,619 such cities.
3. Cities with < 20.000 inhabitants are entitled to secondary, connections, with other local roads limited to tertiary. There are 3,792 such cities.

Note that many smaller cities may still have access highways classified at a higher level than their population would normally justify, because they lie along routes connecting larger cities. In such cases, the local road network should still respect the maximum classification appropriate for that city’s size.

In cases of conurbation (urban areas formed by merging cities), the combined population should be used to determine the access road’s classification.

Criteria of the proposal

There are various possible approaches to classify ways:

• Functional criteria: Highways connecting major urban centers are more important than those linking smaller localities; the greater the population of the cities connected, the higher the classification.
• Physical criteria: Better-constructed highways are typically more important and with more traffic, so dual carriageways would often rank higher than single carriageways, and paved ways higher than unpaved ones.
• Administrative criteria: Federal highways are generally more important than state highways, which are more important than municipal highways, and so on. Connecting highways are also less important than main highways.

This proposal relies primarily on the functional criterion, ensuring continuity of classification across regions. Physical and administrative factors are still considered when choosing the optimal route, but as secondary aspects. Urban and rural differences are also considered. Each way should be assigned the highest classification level that satisfies any of the applicable criteria below.

1. motorway:
   1. A paved, dual carriageway highway with a physical divider between opposite directions, NO level crossings, and at least 10 km in length..
2. trunk:
   1. Paved dual carriageway rural highway WITH level crossings, and at least 10 km in length.
   2. Main paved highway route connecting two urban centers with over 200,000 inhabitants, or major cities that are regional hubs (per IBGE’s Intermediate Geographic Regions).
   3. Paved urban way linking trunk or motorway highways.
   4. Main urban structural way, in cities with more than 200,000 inhabitants.
3. primary:
   1. Paved highway forming the ideal route between cities with over 20,000 inhabitants, or regional centers (Immediate Geographic Regions).
   2. Paved urban way connecting primary highways to each other or to higher-class highways.
   3. Urban structural way, crossing a city with over 20,000 inhabitants.
4. secondary:
   1. Highway/road connecting municipal seats or cities with over 2,000 inhabitants.
   2. Urban way connecting secondary highways/roads or linking to higher levels.
   3. Arterial urban way linking several neighborhoods.
5. tertiary:
   1. Highway/road linking smaller settlements.
   2. Urban way/road connecting tertiary highways/roads or linking to higher level highways.
   3. Urban collector (and/or distributor) way leading traffic to higher-class ways.
6. unclassified:
   1. Urban non-residential way equivalent to a "local way" under the Brazilian Traffic Code (BTC).
   2. Other public rural ways.
7. residential:
   1. Urban residential street, also equivalent to "local way" under the BTC.

Ideal route between two cities

The ideal route between two cities is to be determined through discussion among national and local OSM communities. To simplify the process, a city should be connected to all larger cities within a radius (in kilometers) equal to the square root of its population. If at least one city lies within the other’s radius of influence, an ideal route between them should be mapped accordingly.

Raio de importância de uma cidade

Para esta finalidade, convencionou-se que uma cidade X exerce influência num raio determinado pela raiz quadrada de sua população.

Radius of influence

São Paulo is the largest city in South America, so it is not evaluated against larger ones. Rio de Janeiro, the second largest city, has a population of 6,718,903, giving it a radius of 2,592 km. São Paulo lies within that distance, so they must be appropriately connected. Brasília (3,015,268 inhabitants; radius 1,736 km) should connect properly to both São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Salvador (2,927,408; radius 1,711 km) should connect to São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, and Brasília. Fortaleza (2,669,342; radius 1,634 km) is too far from São Paulo (2,372 km) and Rio (2,192 km), but connects indirectly through Salvador (1,029 km) and Brasília (1,694 km). This demonstrates that the radius is a guideline, not a strict rule. Cities should be assessed like this in descending order of population size.

International highway connections

When defining classifications, cities in neighboring countries must also be considered to ensure continuity of cross-border highway routes. However, connections between Brazilian cities should always be mapped through Brazilian highways (without crossing borders).

Exceptions and disputes

It is understood that this discussion will never be entirely closed and that new ideas should be explored in their own forum threads, including drafts of the results demonstrating the new idea.

A committee should be created to handle disputes and evaluate exceptions that deviate from the main rule but have broad community support.

Discussion

Feedback and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Participants are encouraged to comment:

• In the Telegram road classification group for informal or early discussions;
• On the Wiki discussion page for more consolidated ideas that you want to be recorded and permanently available to future readers;
• On the national mailing list (Talk-br) for formal proposals.

Users without Telegram may use any of the other official OSM Brazil communication channels, preferably starting on the Wiki [[Talk:Brazil/Classificação_das_rodovias_do_Brasil|discussion] page.

Ideally, every participant should have a Wiki account to be able to vote directly. However, votes may be submitted by proxy if explicitly authorized via official OSM channels (such as Telegram groups), with clear reference to the source of authorization for verification.

Voting

If any specific counterpoints are raised during voting, they must be opened as separate discussion topics. Voters should stay informed even after submitting their votes. If an amendment is put to vote and someone who voted for the full proposal does not vote on that amendment, their previous vote will automatically be considered against any changes to the final text.

Voting codes:

Agree	*{{vote|yes}}. Comments. -- ~~~~
Discordo	*{{vote|no}}. Reason. -- ~~~~
Abstenho	*{{vote|abstain}}. Comments. -- ~~~~

Note: ~~~~ automatically inserts your wiki username and today's date.

Votes:

• I approve this proposal.. -- Santamariense (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., but I disagree with the inclusion of roads in the trunk network based on physical criteria. See my full comment. -- Fernando Trebien (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.. -- LucFreitas (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal.. See my full comment. -- portalaventura (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal.. See my full comment. -- LinharesXT (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.. See my full comment. -- Thierry (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2020‎ (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.. -- NarcéliodeSá (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal.. See my full comment. -- Guilherme B Alves (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal., but I disagree with the inclusion of hub cities in IBGE Geographic Regions. See my full comment. -- Fbello (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. in 5 points, but I agree with the principle of continuity and the intention of populating the road map with higher-class roads. See my full comment. -- Geaquinto (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.. UsuárioPar (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Votes cast after voting ended:

• I approve this proposal.. I don't usually map roads, but it seems to me that the proposal is well-founded. vgeorge (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal., and I disagree with 5 points. See my full comment. -- Guilherme B Alves (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Result

Voting has been closed since 05/30/2020 12:00 AM (03:00 UTC). Thank you for your participation!

There were 7 votes in favor (70%), 3 votes against (30%), and 1 abstention within the voting period, and 8 votes in favor (80%), 2 votes against (20%), and 2 abstentions outside of this period. This result is comparable to the global proposal of classifying by importance rather than solely by physical attributes.

There are some common points of contention, highlighted by more than one participant, that should be discussed on the discussion page to improve the proposal's rules. Specific situations in each region of the country continue to be analyzed, discussed, and compared with the proposal's objectives and the opinions of local mappers.