On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:52 AM Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > The real problem is that if unclassified is more important than > residential, what to do with roads that do not merit unclassified but do > not have primarily residential landuse?
That's why I think classification should be done by primary function/purpose, not by a fuzzy (and controversial) concept like importance. "Importance" begs the unanswered questions: important for what? for whom? > Finally, I'd suggest in the US treating unclassified and residential as > exactly the same in importance, because we have no real notion of > unclassified roads like the UK. Do you have any locally-defined highway system that approximately matches the idea of "a system of highways that generally connects place=hamlet"? In Brazil this would generally correspond to municipal roads leading to the rural areas of municipalities. Some municipal roads, though, lead to larger settlements within the municipality but isolated from the main city core, foreign mappers would expect those to be highway=tertiary and occasionally even highway=secondary, depending on the type/size of the settlement. These higher classes would often correspond to a municipally-defined class of highways that are intended to support more intense/heavy traffic. Often the road will start paved in the urban settlement (typically branching out of a tertiary or a secondary highway) and become unpaved for most of its length outside. So even though there is not a single unifying national definition/terminology/signage, OSM's highway classes can be matched to municipal definitions. I've seen edit wars vanish in every place this idea was applied. -- Fernando Trebien _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
