2009/8/6 Lester Caine <[email protected]>: > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant >>> to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. >> >> -1. I would contradict this for streets. > > I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of > importance - yes - but once we drop below that infrastructure, all the > remaining ways should be considered as equal, and personally *I* include > tertiary in that. So residential, service and probably even track as well as > unclassified are of equal importance when it comes to the main function of > moving vehicles from a to c.
lat's put it like this: it depends where and why you want to go to some place. For a farmer, lumberjack or forest police a track is important, no doubt. I intended importance for the street grid. IMHO Of course a tertiary road is more important than un unclassified or residential one. Otherwise: what would be the distinction? Generally you could find out the importance by evaluating (or estimating) the relative traffic frequency. Relative means: relative to the area / surroundings. > The argument about 'is way x better than way y' > where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, > and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified > would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? yes, I agree that there is no consensus about the distinction of importance between unclassified and residential, and maybe not even has to be. But this is the first time I learn that there is also doubt about the distinction of tertiary from residential and unclassified. The latter 2 IMHO are clearly less important than tertiary. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
