On 2015-09-06 09:49,
richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you it is
frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
There is often confusion about the "don't tag for the x" rule. We must
not tag *misleadingly* for a *specific* x. We
On 9/6/15 12:49 PM, richiekenned...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am the editor in question.
>
> The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I
> do not necessarily agree.
>
> However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification
> may warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in
My general rule of thumb for highway tagging in rural Kansas is as
follows. If I know nothing else about the road I start off with US
highway = primary, Kansas highway = secondary and county roads =
tertiary. Then adjust as needed.
For example. K-10 between Lawrence and Olathe [1] is controlled
Sorry to start another thread on this but I just had an exchange with
another mapper here in Kansas that could use some more opinions.
I recently reclassified US 24 west of Manhattan, KS from trunk down to
primary. NE2 had bumped it up to trunk a long time ago and I never
felt that this was right
On 9/6/2015 1:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders
US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10
foot shoulders
I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random driveways and farm
access roads than US 81 although 81
On 9/6/15 6:26 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 9/6/2015 1:24 AM, Toby Murray wrote:
>> US 24: two lanes, undivided, 65 MPH speed limit, narrow shoulders
>> US 81: four lanes, divided by a 50 foot median, 70 MPH speed limit, 10
>> foot shoulders
>>
>> I'm pretty sure US 24 also has a lot more random
I am the editor in question.
The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do not
necessarily agree.
However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may warrant
a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously connects mainly smaller
towns,
Richard Welty wrote:
> i could see having an HFCS tag which carries that value for
> informational purposes, but it shouldn't control our own classification.
In the UK we use the designation= tag to record official classifications
which might not be reflected in the highway type - I'd commend
Richie Kennedy wrote:
> As to Mr. Fairhurst’s comment regarding routing, I’ll remind you
> it is frowned upon to tag for a routing engine.
Given that Mr Fairhurst has been involved in OSM since month 4 in 2004, he
is quite aware of what is frowned upon and what isn't, but he thanks you for
your
9 matches
Mail list logo
