Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Mark Wagner  wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:22:04 -0500
> Bill Ricker  wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Volker Schmidt 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at
> > > a web page of the Federal Highway Administration
> > > ​[...]. On these maps you will find plenty of NHS roads that are
> > > definitively not trunk roads.
> > > Just two examples in Arizona:
> > >
> >
> > I will agree isn't what could handle 'trunk' volume in a densely
> > settled area in EU or NY.
> > If we follow the physical description checklist rigidly, we'd conclude
> > there are few trunk roads outside of metropolises.
> >
> > Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving
> > greatly exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas"
> > signs still live, this is a major road.
> >
> > US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
> > US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . .
> >
>
> WA-127 is on the NHS map.  You could call it "important" or
> "significant" in the sense that it's part of the shortest route from
> Walla Walla to Spokane, and the only bridge across the Snake River for
> 50 miles in either direction, but that doesn't make it important in any
> absolute sense.  The state DOT estimates that it sees maybe 800
> vehicles a day, and if it doesn't have a "Next gas: 65 miles" sign,
> it's only because nobody bothered to put one up.


Reminds me of US 26 between Cairo and John Day in the Oregon outback.  As
soon as you pass the town of Cairo at the OR 103 split, there's a "No Gas
Next 120 miles" sign.   I'm glad the sign was there, though, or I would
have been stranded in a remote and unfamiliar part of the Oregon outback
instead of turning back to Nyssa for more gas.  And it's nothing but a
two-lane highway winding along wash beds across open high-altitude outback
in early summer.  It's certainly the primary route through the area,
serving a more southerly region than US 30 (which almost meets crossing the
Snake River and again much farther west in Portland, and actually meets end
to end with US 30 in Warrenton at the terminus of both routes, IIRC).  In
120 miles, I encountered one other vehicle.  Learned from a State Trooper
in John Day that it was a good thing I did top up a little as nobody even
bothers to patrol that strip more than once every other week.  So...really
don't think that's a trunk at all.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Richard Welty 
wrote:

> On 12/31/16 4:19 PM, Kerry Irons wrote:
> >
> > Not to cloud this discussion, but be aware that at least some states
> > refer to “county trunk” roads at the county level.  Near as I can tell
> > that simply means “major” vs. “minor” roads at the county level
> > without rigid criteria to define them.  Looking at the US NHS roads
> > for my area, it seems that the choices to include a given highway in
> > the NHS is fairly arbitrary.  There may have been traffic counts
> > included in the decision but that would have been only part of the
> > criteria – highways in low-population areas are part of the NHS while
> > much heavier traffic highways in more densely populated areas are not.
> >
> highway=trunk is problematic in the US in many ways. it has been used
> rather
> inconsistently over the years, but right now, it doesn't seem too bad.
>
> changing the sense of highway=trunk to represent the NHS classification is
> likely to fail miserably. not everyone will get the message. some of those
> folks will get involved in edit wars. it will likely just make a hash of
> things.
>

Not to mention that someone not that long ago unilaterally retagged the
entire NHS as trunk and we're *still* undoing the damage that caused years
later, particularly in the flyover states that don't get much attention.
For the sanity of literally everyone involved, I'll not revisit that in
depth, but safe to say at least five OSM mailing lists and the DWG were
extensively involved.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:26 AM, Bill Ricker  wrote:

> But we do need to seriously examine if our US definition of trunk/primary
> in lieu of UK M/A/B system is fit for purpose outside the compact urban
> zones, and then what to do that can serve both the  feeder of a cluster of
> mountain parks and the boulevards of Los Angeles.


I'm still in favor of the method we have now...which as I'm understanding
it would be as follows...

motorway = Fully controlled access, 2+ carriageway environments, automatic
for interstates on the mainland and Hawaii.
trunk = Limited access dual carriageway (ie, has surface junctions, maybe a
few driveways, but way fewer than a primary would have), essentially a
motorway where not all the junctions are ramps.  Also fully controlled
single carriageway highways ("super two" type routes like the Chickasaw
Turnpike for example).
primary =  Major boulevards generally; automatic minimum for US highways.
secondary = More minor boulevards; automatic minimum for paved state
highways.
tertiary = Feeder roads that get enough traffic to warrant permanent lane
channelization (ie, there's paint on the ground, but that's about it);
automatic minimum for paved county routes.
residential = Residential ex/sub/urban streets.
unclassified = Equivalent to residential when abutting landuse is generally
rural or nonresidential.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Mark Wagner]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:22:04 -0500
Bill Ricker  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Volker Schmidt 
> wrote:
> 
> > You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at
> > a web page of the Federal Highway Administration
> > ​[...]. On these maps you will find plenty of NHS roads that are
> > definitively not trunk roads.
> > Just two examples in Arizona:
> >  
> 
> I will agree isn't what could handle 'trunk' volume in a densely
> settled area in EU or NY.
> If we follow the physical description checklist rigidly, we'd conclude
> there are few trunk roads outside of metropolises.
> 
> Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving
> greatly exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas"
> signs still live, this is a major road.
> 
> US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
> US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . .
> 

WA-127 is on the NHS map.  You could call it "important" or
"significant" in the sense that it's part of the shortest route from
Walla Walla to Spokane, and the only bridge across the Snake River for
50 miles in either direction, but that doesn't make it important in any
absolute sense.  The state DOT estimates that it sees maybe 800
vehicles a day, and if it doesn't have a "Next gas: 65 miles" sign,
it's only because nobody bothered to put one up.

-- 
Mark

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Richard Welty]

On 12/31/16 4:19 PM, Kerry Irons wrote:
>
> Not to cloud this discussion, but be aware that at least some states
> refer to “county trunk” roads at the county level.  Near as I can tell
> that simply means “major” vs. “minor” roads at the county level
> without rigid criteria to define them.  Looking at the US NHS roads
> for my area, it seems that the choices to include a given highway in
> the NHS is fairly arbitrary.  There may have been traffic counts
> included in the decision but that would have been only part of the
> criteria – highways in low-population areas are part of the NHS while
> much heavier traffic highways in more densely populated areas are not.
>
highway=trunk is problematic in the US in many ways. it has been used rather
inconsistently over the years, but right now, it doesn't seem too bad.

changing the sense of highway=trunk to represent the NHS classification is
likely to fail miserably. not everyone will get the message. some of those
folks will get involved in edit wars. it will likely just make a hash of
things.

i recommend some sort of subtagging, although i don't think nhs=yes is
a good idea. i suggest some sort of subtagging namespace should be
worked out for these sorts of official government designations.

richard
-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> I have just come across this NHS road that I know well: [1]
> This is a winding mountain road, two lanes, many parts without shoulder.
>
>
​And the only/best  thru road through these mountains; access from LA to
multiple state/national parks.

I would like to bring the discussion back to my main argument. The property
> of a road "belonging to the NHS network" is orthogonal (independent) to the
> OSM road classifications motorway|trunk|primary|seondary|tertiary|
> unclassified-residential
>

​Orthogonal as such yes.
But a useful clue as to which road in a rural region is serving the purpose
of a primary or trunk despite not having all the hallmarks of an urban
trunk.
​


> Being part of the NHS is not recognazable on the ground, and does not
> allow to defer any useful property for data users (may be apart from the
> smoothness of the surface, because generally speaking there is more funding
> available for maintenance).
>

Yes,  being the best maintained road for miles around ​
​(going in that direction) is quite recognizable even if not expressible in
words. Growing up rural, you feel it in your bones. Literally.


​
​​ ​

> Let me turn the argument around:
> NHS roads include roads that fall in many OSM categories, like motorway,
> trunk, primary, secondary (like my last example), and possibly lower
> ​ ​
> If you were to label all NHS roads as highway=trunk you would loose
> important information for the data users.
>

​Richard's comment suggests the current US misuse of pavement
characteristics to mechanically classify roads in US as substitute for UK
A/B classifications is useless.  It appears to be useful where most of us
live in conurbations, and do most of our driving on roads we know well
anyway, but a mechanical pavement -> ​classification is inadequate to
indicate its relative position in the highway network in the great beyond
where limited access dual carriageways are far away, where we cycle or
drive for pleasure.



> The road property "belonging to the NHS" could be easily tagged by an
> independent, additional tag, something like NHS=yes.
>

​This and relations should be done at a minimum, and would allow Richard's
cyclemap to promote NHS links up a level of rendering. ​

But we do need to seriously examine if our US definition of trunk/primary
in lieu of UK M/A/B system is fit for purpose outside the compact urban
zones, and then what to do that can serve both the  feeder of a cluster of
mountain parks and the boulevards of Los Angeles.



-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Volker Schmidt]

>
> Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving
> greatly exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas"
> signs still live, this is a major road.
>
> US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
> US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . .
>
> I have just come across this NHS road that I know well: [1]
This is a winding mountain road, two lanes, many parts without shoulder.

I would like to bring the discussion back to my main argument. The property
of a road "belonging to the NHS network" is orthogonal (independent) to the
OSM road classifications
motorway|trunk|primary|seondary|tertiary|unclassified-residential
Being part of the NHS is not recognazable on the ground, and does not allow
to defer any useful property for data users (may be apart from the
smoothness of the surface, because generally speaking there is more funding
available for maintenance).
Let me turn the argument around:
NHS roads include roads that fall in many OSM categories, like motorway,
trunk, primary, secondary (like my last example), and possibly lower. If
you were to label all NHS roads as highway=trunk you would loose important
information for the data users.
The road property "belonging to the NHS" could be easily tagged by an
independent, additional tag, something like NHS=yes.

[1] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-aKb3CeiN_CzmglVqYyRzQ
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Kerry Irons]

Not to cloud this discussion, but be aware that at least some states refer to 
“county trunk” roads at the county level.  Near as I can tell that simply means 
“major” vs. “minor” roads at the county level without rigid criteria to define 
them.  Looking at the US NHS roads for my area, it seems that the choices to 
include a given highway in the NHS is fairly arbitrary.  There may have been 
traffic counts included in the decision but that would have been only part of 
the criteria – highways in low-population areas are part of the NHS while much 
heavier traffic highways in more densely populated areas are not.

 

 

Kerry Irons

 

From: Bill Ricker [mailto:bill.n1...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2016 12:22 PM
To: Volker Schmidt 
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org Openstreetmap 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

 

 

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Volker Schmidt mailto:vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote:

You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at a web page 
of the Federal Highway Administration 

​[...]. On these maps you will find plenty of NHS roads that are definitively 
not trunk roads.

Just two examples in Arizona:

 

I will agree isn't what could handle 'trunk' volume in a densely settled area 
in EU or NY.
If we follow the physical description checklist rigidly, we'd conclude there 
are few trunk roads outside of metropolises. 

Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving greatly 
exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas" signs still 
live, this is a major road. 

US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . . 

Wikipedia says [0]

The National Highway System (NHS) is a network of strategic  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway> highways within the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States> United States, including the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System> Interstate Highway 
System and other roads serving major airports, ports, rail or truck terminals, 
railway stations,  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipeline_transport> pipeline 
terminals and other strategic transport facilities. Altogether, it constitutes 
the largest highway system in the world.

Individual  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state> states are encouraged to 
focus federal funds on improving the efficiency and safety of this network. The 
roads within the system were identified by the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Transportation> 
United States Department of Transportation in cooperation with the states, 
local officials, and  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_planning_organization> metropolitan 
planning organizations and approved by the  
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress> United States Congress 
in 1995.

 

So being on this list should assure the road is among the best maintained.

Oh, because we don't have green A signage on the NHS designated routes, and we 
only map what is physically there ? 
The Mapillary photos show modern video billboards. If the advertisers recognize 
it as a trunk worth their time, we can too.

Being better maintained or wider than other in the greater area is physical.

 

Richard's comment 

   "(FWIW, the current distinction between highway=trunk and highway=primary in
the US seems so arbitrary that I actually render them both the same for 
cycle.travel <http://cycle.travel> )" 

suggests forcefully that our current  rule for US is NOT working. 

Looking at states i'm more familiar with than AZ, Massachusetts [1] and Maine 
[2] , these NHS roads are pretty much what the locals think of as the main 
connections between cities/regions, which is a reasonable "human" translation 
of "trunk".  

I do see some "MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials" that are feeders to the presumed 
trunks, unclear if they deserve trunk status. I also see some interesting 
omissions, US20, MA30, MA9 are not included end to end, but only selectively.  
But if that means federal funding is concentrated on portions of US20 that are 
in NHS at expense of those not, then they will be physically different despite 
same signage.

This proposal is better than what we have now -- in rural areas at least .

 

( ​I love that FHWA has these maps posted publicly. 35 years ago i produced a 
similar state-and-city atlas for a DOT rail safety office ​... with a plotter 
and color Xerox[tm] copier.  Lost to history.
personal to Volker - thanks for pointing these out to me ! )




[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States) 
​[1] 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/massachusetts/ma_massachusetts.pdf​

​[2] 
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Bill Ricker]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 4:21 AM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at a web
> page of the Federal Highway Administration
> ​[...]. On these maps you will find plenty of NHS roads that are
> definitively not trunk roads.
> Just two examples in Arizona:
>

I will agree isn't what could handle 'trunk' volume in a densely settled
area in EU or NY.
If we follow the physical description checklist rigidly, we'd conclude
there are few trunk roads outside of metropolises.

Both appear to be well maintained in the photos; the width of paving
greatly exceeds the two marked lanes. Out where "50 Miles to Next Gas"
signs still live, this is a major road.

US160 is the most significant road for literally miles. ​
US180 is the tourist main feeder to the Grand Canyon . .

Wikipedia says [0]

> The *National Highway System* (*NHS*) is a network of strategic highways
>  within the United States
> , including the Interstate
> Highway System  and
> other roads serving major airports, ports, rail or truck terminals, railway
> stations, pipeline terminals
>  and other strategic
> transport facilities. Altogether, it constitutes the largest highway system
> in the world.
>
> Individual states  are
> encouraged to focus federal funds on improving the efficiency and safety of
> this network. The roads within the system were identified by the United
> States Department of Transportation
> 
>  in cooperation with the states, local officials, and metropolitan
> planning organizations
>  and
> approved by the United States Congress
>  in 1995.
>

So being on this list should assure the road is among the best maintained.

Oh, because we don't have green A signage on the NHS designated routes, and
we only map what is physically there ?
The Mapillary photos show modern video billboards. If the advertisers
recognize it as a trunk worth their time, we can too.
Being better maintained or wider than other in the greater area is physical.

Richard's comment

>"(FWIW, the current distinction between highway=trunk and
> highway=primary in
> the US seems so arbitrary that I actually render them both the same for
> cycle.travel)"
>
suggests forcefully that our current  rule for US is NOT working.

Looking at states i'm more familiar with than AZ, Massachusetts [1] and
Maine [2] , these NHS roads are pretty much what the locals think of as the
main connections between cities/regions, which is a reasonable "human"
translation of "trunk".

I do see some "MAP-21 NHS Principal Arterials" that are feeders to the
presumed trunks, unclear if they deserve trunk status. I also see some
interesting omissions, US20, MA30, MA9 are not included end to end, but
only selectively.  But if that means federal funding is concentrated on
portions of US20 that are in NHS at expense of those not, then they will be
physically different despite same signage.

This proposal is better than what we have now -- in rural areas at least .

( ​I love that FHWA has these maps posted publicly. 35 years ago i produced
a similar state-and-city atlas for a DOT rail safety office ​... with a
plotter and color Xerox[tm] copier.  Lost to history.
personal to Volker - thanks for pointing these out to me ! )

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States)
​[1]
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/massachusetts/ma_massachusetts.pdf
​
​[2]
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/maine/me_Maine.pdf

​

-- 
Bill Ricker
bill.n1...@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/n1vux
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Richard Fairhurst]

voschix wrote:
> The answer is definitely NO.
> You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at a 
> web page of the Federal Highway Administration [1]. On these maps 
> you will find plenty of NHS roads that are definitively not trunk roads.
> Just two examples in Arizona: [2] [3]

That's not too outlandish. The UK usage of highway=trunk, which historically
is the original usage (as Map Features was devised in the UK by Andy
Robinson and first applied in the UK), includes plenty of roads like that or
worse. There is no implication in the UK that highway=trunk means a dual
carriageway (divided highway), limited access, grade-separated junctions or
anything like that - it's just the network of the most important roads
between cities and towns, which are A roads signposted with green signs.
We're a small, dense and often hilly country, so these roads can sometimes
be narrow and winding.

Since then other countries have adopted their own local definitions, which
often include minimum infrastructure requirements. That's absolutely fine,
and that's their right, but it's also fine for the US to adopt a definition
which might be closer to (say) the original UK one than to the German one.
Albert's suggestion of equating it to the National Highway System would be
very close to the UK definition.

(FWIW, the current distinction between highway=trunk and highway=primary in
the US seems so arbitrary that I actually render them both the same for
cycle.travel.)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/highway-trunk-for-NHS-routes-tp5888347p5888378.html
Sent from the USA mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Volker Schmidt]

As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National
> Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone
> routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that
> they should be tagged with trunk.
> --Roadsguy
>

The answer is definitely NO.
You can find detailed PDF maps of all NHS Routes, state-by-state at a web
page of the Federal Highway Administration [1]. On these maps you will find
plenty of NHS roads that are definitively not trunk roads.
Just two examples in Arizona: [2] [3]


[1] http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/
[2] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/C7jPgAHJbdBBggMeNV6UvA
[3] https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/1U4eqD64lQaVJQCLWMTbrg
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Volker Schmidt  wrote:

>
> As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National
>> Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone
>> routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that
>> they should be tagged with trunk.
>> --Roadsguy
>>
>
> The formulation on the wiki page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence
> does not make any reference to the National Highway System, at least so
> far.
> Looking at the NHS Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> National_Highway_System_(United_States) I would say the answer to the
> question should probably be "no", as the NHS roads are defined on certain
> importance criteria and this assignment seems to be orthogonal to the road
> classification system, whereas the OSM tagging is based on the road
> attributes, layout and traffic usage classes.
>

I would generally be inclined to say that most members of the NHS would
already be a part of the US highway system at a minimum, so I would be
surprised if these aren't already tagged primary, trunk or motorway
depending on it's observable attributes anyway.  Looking through the
wikipedia page, it appears some member ways might be considered
unclassified or tertiary based on observable ground truth and the highest
level network the way might be signed as being part of (none, county,
state, national, interstate) would be considered a trunk if NHS were
minimum trunk.  I'd tend to lean against this being a good idea, since we
already have trunk for limited access dual carriageway/controlled access
single carriageway; and motorway for completely controlled access and dual
carriageway configurations.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

[Volker Schmidt]

> As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National
> Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone
> routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that
> they should be tagged with trunk.
> --Roadsguy
>

The formulation on the wiki page
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway:International_equivalence
does not make any reference to the National Highway System, at least so far.
Looking at the NHS Wikipedia page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States) I
would say the answer to the question should probably be "no", as the NHS
roads are defined on certain importance criteria and this assignment seems
to be orthogonal to the road classification system, whereas the OSM tagging
is based on the road attributes, layout and traffic usage classes.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us