Re: [Talk-us] [OSM-talk] Beware Pokemon users

moltonel 3x Combo writes: > While this is only an anecdotal result, there are clearly a lot more > spawns on this walk than in the surrounding area (I regularly get > 10-15 spawns on this 700m footway, but only 1-2 covering the same > distance along the primary to get there). > > IMHO, the

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

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

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

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. >

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

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]

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

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