> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:09:25 -0500 > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > That's probably not relevant for anywhere in the USA (even in Alaska > > the main highways between cities are paved... right?) but it's a > > reminder that we can certainly choose to do things in a way that makes > > sense for mapping the USA; we don't have to use the British or German > > standards. > > > > The larger cities in southern Alaska. Most are gravel, including a paper > interstate. I think Alaska's the last state to still have gravel state > highways.
Alaska does have gravel state highways, but the main road between Fairbanks and Anchorage (Parks Highway, AK 3) is entirely paved, as is the entirety of the Alaska Highway itself and the roads connecting it to Fairbanks and Anchorage. So the statement "the main highways between cities are paved" is still true. That said, no, Alaska is not the last state to still have gravel state highways. Vermont still has a couple (part of VT 121 is gravel, for example). Montana has quite a few, including one section of a primary route (MT 38 over Skalkaho Pass). Utah has at least one (UT 261's Moki Dugway segment). Further examples likely exist. As for the original subject that spurred this discussion... I agree with the general sentiment that for any classifications other than motorway (which for US purposes is treated as being equal to "freeway"), the road's network importance matters more than its geometry. It may be fine for some sections of former US 66 to be tagged as trunk if they still function as major through roads, but since most sections do not function as such their classification should be lowered to the level appropriate for the given segment. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
