James Ewen wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:49 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> James Ewen wrote: >> >>> I prefer the main roads in the bush being tagged as tertiary, because >>> they then become a useful addition to the map database. >> >> I tend to agree with that opinion if they're a referenced highway (BIA >> highway as is common in the Warm Springs, Navajo and Hopi nations, or >> Forest Service route on USDA and BLM land). Definitely tag it as >> surface=* as appropriate! > > I guess you missed the rest of my post where I described these > roads... many are privately owned, and therefore NOT a referenced > highway belonging to the government, but rather a private road owned > by a privately held company. They are however available for use by the > public. Putting them on the map in a manner where they can be seen is > important. Having a bunch of data available, but not visible to the > user renders it nearly useless.
If it's a private road, I'm less inclined to call it a tertiary. "unclassified" doesn't sound bad in this case. Given that the primary, secondary and tertiary designations belong to the national, state and county/city/forest service/BIA/other subordinate systems by default, I'm generally disinclined to consider any private road as a tertiary or higher unless it's got a real reference number (such as Australia's toll motorways, and the proposed private Yamhill Tollway in Oregon). I'm not quite certain what you're going for...closest I can think of are the desert roads in eastern Oregon or in New Mexico, using trailblazers not dissimilar to North Dakota's state highway trailblazers, broadly graded into the desert floor resembling a snowplowed winter road (except dirt instead of snow). _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
