On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Richard Mann < [email protected]> wrote:
> I'd agree that it should be "importance" for > trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for > single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing > (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends > to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the > importance (usually based on the type of signs). > > However, motorway is physical, and many of the other highway tags are > defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial > sentence needs to allow for more variety than just "importance". > +1 In the Philippines, we tend to tag the highways via importance and highway=motorway as a physical variant of highway=trunk. Relying on administrative classifications (National, provincial, municipal roads) will not work at all. > On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use > highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely > comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads and narrow > country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than > necessary). Perhaps the solution lies in qualifying unclassified roads with > an abutters tag when it's used in towns. > We generally use highway=unclassified for all other non-track roads that are not residential. So residential and unclassified are generally equal but residential are for strictly residential areas so highway=residential roads would have lesser "importance" with regard to routing. This still conforms to the use of highway=* as an importance indicator. Eugene
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
