I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to the U.S. map, Eric. We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to envisage taking some away. Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd consider as one outcome. Martijn
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 7:27 AM Eric Ladner <[email protected]> wrote: > I personally dislike "trunk". Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to > interpretation (and argument). It doesn't really add anything to the > information on the map, IMO. A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of > how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has. > > Maybe if the definition of "trunk" was solidified to something more > specific, it would have a more valuable use case. > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:15 AM Mike N <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote: >> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as >> > primary doesn???t make any sense; >> >> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes >> sense. >> >> Some massive changes such as in >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/78620805 are raising roads which >> have no other major choices, but are apparently just because they are >> the most important. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > -- > Eric Ladner > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
