On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 04:57:45 -0600 Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 I would not use *_link in such situation. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
