John Smith wrote: > That isn't the point, the same key/value pair is being used for 2 > completely different purposes
No, it isn't. highway=unclassified has, and always has had, a consistent meaning. If you are using highway=unclassified in a residential area to mean "less significant than highway=residential", you're doing it completely contrary to standard practice. Therefore you are by definition wrong. Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads that aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). highway=minor would work, or even your suggested highway=rural - but _not_ as a replacement for unclassified in rural areas, but rather, an addition. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--highway%3Dunclassified-currently-is-too-ambiguous%2C-so-here%27s-my-proposal-to-fix-it.-tp24821055p24832503.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
