On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 09:57:01AM +0000, Dermot McNally wrote: > Hi, > > I agree that a reform is merited, and I think that most of your > changes are sound. > > One, I think, should be reworded: > > On 15 March 2010 09:03, Andrew McCarthy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Proposed: > > Local "L" roads whose importance for through traffic is quite > > high. This can be the case both in urban and rural areas. The > > choice of applying "tertiary" or "unclassified" in Ireland is > > subjectively chosen by you, the mapper. > > I think the subjective element is overstated. I also think that the > known subdivisions of local roads by importance can help us: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Roads_in_Ireland#Local_Road_numbering
Ah, had completely forgotten about that. > My suggestion is that we reproduce the details of the 3 types of local > road and suggest that the Local Primary and Local Tertiary roads be > tagged as tertiary and unclassified respectively. For the local > secondaries we could suggest one of two approaches: > > 1. Pick either tertiary or unclassified. Drawback is that I'm guessing > we have insufficient information to help us judge now which to > suggest. > > 2. Fall back to "mapper's choice" based on significance for through traffic. I think that, until we know more L-numbers and get a feel for them, the latter is more appropriate. It's easy, as you say, to automatically convert them to a particular choice at a later date if we want. I'll have a go at incorporating your wording about primary/secondary/ tertiary along with L roads of unknown ranking into the existing layout of the highway pages. Cheers, Andrew _______________________________________________ Talk-ie mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ie
