> > If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to > downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2, > not "Trunk 2". In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably > primary.
yes, that's what I want. Perhaps you should make your own render, and > submit change proposals to the standard style. A possibility might be > coloring roads by ref and hence legal designation, not highway tag, and > then to draw their width/weight based on physical characteristics. If > that's useful, and I think it might be, maybe people will adopt it. I already got this idea, but I won't rely on the ref and the legal designation (it may be well done in the UK and in the US, it is not the case in France), I need a local user-defined value for the importance of an road : the key "highway" as used in Japan or UK, with trunk as super-primary, or a new key "importance" which almost duplicates the highway value (trunk or super_primary, primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, local) Maybe I should make a test map and come back later :) djakk 2017-08-24 2:09 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com>: > > djakk djakk <djakk.dj...@gmail.com> writes: > > > The thing is, I'm annoyed when there is a primary in the middle of a > trunk > > road (example : https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/44.3996/-70.9439) > > I haven't been there, but the notion that the road is fundamentally > different in the primary section is totally sensible and likely to be > true. > > > whereas in the U.K. this does not exist ... tagging rules should be as > > generic as possible, should not they ? > > In an alternate universe, where tags were developed from the ground up > by committee and vetted against each country's reality, before any > mapping was done, perhaps. But that's not what OSM is, for better or > for worse. There was a scheme that really made sense in the UK, and > it's been adapted. > > In the US (are you in the US?), there isn't any formal notion of trunk. > There are US highways, which were agreed long ago to map to primary, and > there are Interstates, which were agreed to map to motorway. This > mapping is arguably sensible. > > My impreession is that in the UK, there were A/B/C/U, and then later M > were created, and I'm not sure when trunk happened. > > In the US there were US and state highways, and then later I-. We > don't have a naming system for trunk. So therefore, we have adapted > high-grade physical to mean a better type of primary. And basically > almost everybody is OK with this. > > If we are going to have the consistency you want, the way would be to > downgrade the trunk sections to primary, because after all it's US 2, > not "Trunk 2". In the UK, it would be the A2, and unquestionably > primary. > > The real problem is not that trunk means what it does. It's that > renderers and perhaps routers focus on the main highway tag, and make > results you don't like. Perhaps you should make your own render, and > submit change proposals to the standard style. A possibility might be > coloring roads by ref and hence legal designation, not highway tag, and > then to draw their width/weight based on physical characteristics. If > that's useful, and I think it might be, maybe people will adopt it. > > But changing the definition of trunk because you don't like the > rendering output is even worse than tagging for the renderer - it's > meta-tagging for the renderer :-) >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
