Eric H. Christensen wrote:
> The routing engine should be able to take into account
> the road surface
It can and often does. Your problem there is that only 2% of highway= ways
in the US are explicitly tagged with surface; probably only 30% are
implicitly tagged; and sometimes the implicit
20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
> So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary,
> tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway,
> major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with
> Texas and Missouri and their
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
> to the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N wrote:
> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>
I now reiterate the fundamental struggle in this discussion (which can be
summed up as "both"):
highway=trunk is another level of granularity (above primary) to describe "high
performance OR high importance roads" (emphasis mine). Additionally,
(from the US-specific definition from our wiki):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:19 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to
> the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so
I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
to the U.S. map, Eric.
We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
envisage taking some away.
Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd
consider as one outcome.
I personally dislike "trunk". Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to
interpretation (and argument). It doesn't really add anything to the
information on the map, IMO. A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of
how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has.
Maybe if the
On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
primary doesn???t make any sense;
The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
sense.
Some massive changes such as in
t: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk VS primary,
Paul Johnson writes:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote:
>
>>
>>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
>> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
>> coher
Paul Johnson writes:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote:
>
>>
>>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
>> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
>> coherent network of interconnected roads.
>
> In which case, rendering
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:24 AM Mike N wrote:
>
>I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
> 2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
> coherent network of interconnected roads.
In which case, rendering based on network on the route
I think many of the trunk VS motorway VS primary conflicts come from
2 points of view: on the one hand, people like to zoom out and see a
coherent network of interconnected roads. On the other side, there is
the group that prefers the road be classed according to its regional
13 matches
Mail list logo
