On 2015-07-22, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Begin <jfd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary
> roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c).
> IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core,
> Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions.
>
> I prefer looking at OSM highway as “infrastructure categories” –my
> understanding of OSM definitions– rather than as “strategic categories” as
> described in (a) and partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest
> as long they are applied consistently (d).
In my opinion, the "strategic category" approach better fits the spirit of the
British classification system that OSM highway tagging is based on. There is no
regard whatsoever for access control there - I think there are even some
controlled access secondary roads.
It's the approach I've been using for my tagging in the Maritimes. I (and
apparently others) have been using that National Highway System map to define
trunk roads in the absence of any other Canadian equivalent to the British
trunk system.
Just my 2 cents….
JPK
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
