Re: [OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.

[John Smith]

--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hmm... Frederik has a point. John you seem to be mashing
> together 1)
> the importance and 2) the quality ("good" vs "bad").

Quality doesn't have as much to do with things as the importance, as a result 
of the importance and the number of complaints to the council that a road needs 
to be graded.

> But the alternative (which Frederik seems to be suggesting)
> would be
> to use primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential
> solely to
> address 1) the importance, and use surface + width + lanes
> + 4wd_only,
> etc, for 2) the quality.

I don't care how things are dealt with but the emails in the last day or 2 have 
gone no where in addressing the issue, just trying to get each other to 
understand how someone came to that point and their view of unclassified is the 
only one that matters. 


      

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk