Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/15 21:49, Mark Goodge wrote: > If a road can be used for through routing then it probably is tertiary > rather than unclassified[1]. That's a reasonable rule of thumb for > making the decision, in the absence of more reliable information. But > secondary is very well defined, and is part

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/2015 18:05, Lester Caine wrote: The point I was trying to make was that Secondary, tertiary and unclassified are essentially the same level of importance for road navigation and so treating them differently in rendering ( or routing rules ) adds an incorrect importance to one over the

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/11/15 13:31, Andy Townsend wrote: > On 04/11/2015 12:54, James Tait wrote: >> ... I stumbled upon a changeset[1] that highlighted questions >> I already had about the tagging of roads in Mickleover. > > I'd tend to agree that Mickleover's

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 4 November 2015 at 10:25, Mark Goodge wrote: > Unfortunately, the NSG is not Open Data, so it isn't available to OSM by > default. The nearest we can do is attempt to visually classify by > observation. That's one of the weaknesses of a crowd-sourced approach., If > that

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On Wed Nov 4 13:17:53 2015 GMT, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 04/11/15 12:54, James Tait wrote: > > > If I were to follow the guidelines in that changeset, Uttoxeter Road > > (B5020) would be a tertiary road, and Etwall Road would be > > unclassified. I don't know which roads are maintained by the

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/11/15 10:25, Mark Goodge wrote: > On 04/11/2015 08:40, Lester Caine wrote: >> OK finally spotted what is going thanks to the new style sheet ;) >> >> The question is where do we get the 'tertiary' designation from since in >> many cases there

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/15 12:54, James Tait wrote: If I were to follow the guidelines in that changeset, Uttoxeter Road (B5020) would be a tertiary road, and Etwall Road would be unclassified. I don't know which roads are maintained by the Highways Agency, but my gut says that the A38 would be a trunk road,

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/2015 12:54, James Tait wrote: ... I stumbled upon a changeset[1] that highlighted questions I already had about the tagging of roads in Mickleover. I'd tend to agree that Mickleover's "over-tertiarised" (and it's not the only place). It might be something to raise at the next East

[Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

OK finally spotted what is going thanks to the new style sheet ;) The question is where do we get the 'tertiary' designation from since in many cases there is little to distinguish those roads from 'unclassified'. Both are potentially good quality national speed limit routes and in my case they

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/15 13:31, Andy Townsend wrote: > No - the "rules" for trunk, primary and secondary are as spelt out by > Tom Hughes, and have worked well. There are minor exceptions where the > official classification hasn't caught up (e.g. something that's > "officially" an A road that you can't drive

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/15 11:48, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: > On 4 November 2015 at 10:25, Mark Goodge wrote: >> > Unfortunately, the NSG is not Open Data, so it isn't available to OSM by >> > default. The nearest we can do is attempt to visually classify by >> > observation.

Re: [Talk-GB] Secondary, tertiary and unclassified

On 04/11/2015 08:40, Lester Caine wrote: OK finally spotted what is going thanks to the new style sheet ;) The question is where do we get the 'tertiary' designation from since in many cases there is little to distinguish those roads from 'unclassified'. As far as the UK is concerned, this is