Re: [Talk-us] georgia road classifications
On 09/09/2009 03:17 PM, Kevin Samples wrote: it looks like classifying Urban Freeways and Expressways as motorway is the way to go. I double checked GA400, US78, and GA316 and they fall in the Urban Freeways and Expressways where they are exclusively limited access. So after going back through the definitions from the FHWA documents, here is a revised crosswalk. let me know what you think Rural Interstate Principal Arterial - highway:motorway Rural Principal Arterial - highway:trunk Rural Minor Arterial - highway:primary Rural Major Collector - highway:secondary Rural Minor Collector - highway:tertiary Rural Local Road - highway:residential Urban Interstate Principal Arterial - highway:motorway Urban Freeways and Expressways - highway:motorway Urban Principal Arterial - highway:primary Urban Minor Arterial - highway:secondary Urban Collector Street - highway:tertiary Urban Local Street - highway:residential I'd consider setting “Rural Local road” as highway=unclassified. Otherwise, it looks great to me. -Alex mauer “hawke” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Unpaved streets
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: yes, yes, yes - this is the most sane summary of the road/track debate I've seen in quite a while. Of course, it also reopens the track/path argument, but I'll leave that to others to battle out. How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. There's an ongoing thread on the newbies list about tracks and paths not rendering in the cyclemap layer. It's basically a rehash of the code for accuracy, not for the renderer. The start of the thread is at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2009-September/003522.html -Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] renderer adaptation (was: Unpaved streets )
chris wrote: On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote: On 09/09/2009 12:05 PM, Chris Hunter wrote: Of course, it also reopens the track/path argument, but I'll leave that to others to battle out. How is there even an argument there? track is for cars and always has been, while path is for not-cars and always has been. There's an ongoing thread on the newbies list about tracks and paths not rendering in the cyclemap layer. It's basically a rehash of the code for accuracy, not for the renderer. The start of the thread is at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/2009-September/003522.html how hard is it (either technically or politically) to get the major renderers to adapt to needs like this? as i understand it, the paved/unpaved topic has much the same issue. (and i'd like to be able to tell my new-to-osm friends that they'll someday be able to actually see the results of adding unpaved tags.) paul =- paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 55.4 degrees) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
