Please keep in mind that in many cases the L-numbers are not signposted yet.
So we need the personal decision based on routability and width (!) as well as the number-based approach. Also a higher-numbered L-road might be resurfaced and widened, e.g. to give access to a new development while maintaining the same number. I therefore think personal judgement of the mapper about the suitability of the road is more important than the L-numbers. I would also prefer not to make the OSM wiki page too complicated for the newbie by distinguishing the OSM-classification vs. the L-subclassifaction. I.e. the Local Primary/Secondary/Tertiary roads would confuse the newbie because of terminology overload. Tom Andrew McCarthy carefully composed this message, on 2010-03-15 12:59: > 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
