At 2012-02-21 10:40, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Dave Hansen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/13/2012 05:19 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: >> It could just as easily be local mapping gone awry, by a local who >> thinks only state highways should be primary. The TIGER import would not >> have included any primaries, since there are no U.S. Highways in Fresno >> (though any such would be motorway). > > Here were the a2* mappings from the original import, fwiw: > This seems to have been taken from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/TIGER_to_OSM_Attribute_Map What annoys me about that page (a lot, actually) is that there is no clarity as to whether this is the *actual* mapping used.
There does not seem to be a direct correlation between the original tiger:cfcc values and the highway=* tag any more. Some roads were (properly) promoted to secondary since the original import. Some of those should be promoted further (to primary).
I wouldn't focus so much on those original values, or what was originally done at import, since the TIGER classifications are known to be incorrect as compared with local knowledge and official definitions by city planners. Did you see my previous post? I provided a link to the planning data that describe the official planning categories and how I would map them to OSM.
-- Alan Mintz <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
