On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/31/2011 06:26 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote: >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor. >>>>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't. >>>> >>>> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust >>>> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced >>>> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the >>>> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that). >>>> >>>> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be >>>> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on >>>> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here. >>> >>> I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely >>> accepted convention. >> >> That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores >> the realities of where traffic goes. >> >> To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69> > > 59 and 19...which networks? Those two routes have incomplete refs.
IL state routes. I'll get to them someday, maybe. >> If we stuck purely to the above >> convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best). But >> traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks >> like. > > I'd probably consider both 20 and 72 as trunks based on their design > looking at the NAIP footage. Maybe. I definitely think IL 72 should be primary further west than it is today, but I got sidetracked into fixing more bad TIGER alignments. -- Kristian Zoerhoff [email protected] _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
