I just noticed that I forgot to set the list on cc, see below.
Gerd ________________________________ Von: Gerd Petermann Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2015 10:03 An: Martin Koppenhoefer Betreff: AW: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags "a link "links" (connects) two different roads" yes, but that is more or less the case with all roads, isn't it? So why do we have tags like "highway=trunk_link" instead of a combination like e.g. "highway=trunk" "link=yes" ? Maybe it is just a historical convinience (I'd call it error then) which nobody dared to change ? Gerd ________________________________ Von: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Montag, 9. November 2015 09:44 An: GerdP Cc: osm Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags 2015-11-09 7:39 GMT+01:00 GerdP <gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com<mailto:gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com>>: I only know a discussion in Germany which came to the conclusion that tags like unclassified_link, residential_link and service_link make not much sense: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26083 The wiki doesn't mention those _link types as well, and my understanding is that only major roads have a link (if link in english means what we call "Abfahrt/ Auffahrt" in Germany, I would describe it as a lane that allows to decrease/increase speed. literally, a link "links" (connects) two different roads. While I agree that for service roads this seems a strange tag, I could imagine unclassified and residential links to make sense somehow (at roundabouts), but personally I'm using the main road class (i.e. unclassified or residential) for these "links". Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
