On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] > wrote:
> > 2015-11-11 11:00 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann <[email protected] > >: > >> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test >> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link) >> contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify >> reg. 2b) >> > > > I believe even tertiary links should be extremely rare. The roads > typically having links are motorways, trunks and many of the primaries > (depending on the region), some of the secondaries, rarely tertiaries (if > ever, might also be seen as classification errors but who knows, maybe > there is good reason in some areas for these). > So, how do you propose the very common situation of porkchops on tertiaries be handled? One such example is at 1st and Norfolk in Tulsa: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=36.15860&mlon=-95.97860#map=19/36.15860/-95.97860
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
