On 29.08.19 05:05, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd
> like to address the use of highway=trunk in general.
>
> I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and
> expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=,
> For example, US Hwy 101 is the main route connecting the cities (e.g.
> Eureka) and towns along the coast of northern California. Right now
> only some segments are tagged as highway=trunk. I would like to
> upgrade all of it to highway=trunk, up to Hwy 199, where most traffic
> leaves 101 and he
I chime in as a North American (Upper Midwest, originally) that highway=trunk
is a not-especially-clear semantic in OSM (here, let's say the lower 48). I
understand the history of the tag but agree it is used to mean many things,
widely, including in the states/regions/areas Joseph mentions; it
I checked and motorroad=yes in used in Spain for "Autovias" which are
like expressways, but they usually allow bicycles, just like many
expressways in the USA.
So the idea that motorroads prohibit bicycles and pedestrians is more
specific to France, Germany and some other countries, while in other
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:15 PM stevea wrote:
>
> > Eeeeh, that's gonna be a hard sell for the most part, most Oklahoma
> expressways are built like this as are parts of Interstate freeways, with
> the only real difference between the two being at-grade intersections and
> limited driveways (as o
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:05 PM Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:
> I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd
> like to address the use of highway=trunk in general.
>
> I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and
> expressway=yes, along with other details like lan
I totally agree with this! As I've stated before, I've long thought that
most US highways should be tagged as trunk roads. Heck, someone recently
tagged US 101 in Washington as trunk but I have no interest in changing it
back because I agree with the way it's tagged. That would be more in line
with
On Aug 28, 2019, at 6:16 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> So, the segment in question given in the example to me (I don't think the
> response was intended only for me, so I'm not quoting the whole thing) is
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/14678570/. OpenStreetCam has footage from
> November 2018
I don't have any local knowledge about old route 66 in OK, but I'd
like to address the use of highway=trunk in general.
I'm in favor of using a secondary tags like motorroad=yes and
expressway=yes, along with other details like lanes=, surface=,
maxspeed=, etc, to specify expressways, rather than
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:10 AM Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 'Historic US 66' is a bannered and numbered route because of its
> history, not because of its current importance to the road system. The
> constituent ways should be tagged as whatever they are currently in
> the road network. In many places,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:04 AM stevea wrote:
> Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us:
>
> The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old,
> poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit
> ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what
> granular
On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:09 AM stevea wrote:
> The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old,
> poor-condition (where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit
> ourselves to US roads here because this is talk-us), and at what granularity.
> (Volker COULD do detailed ta
Hi Paul, Hi Volker, Hi talk-us:
The topic begs the question as to what such (usually very) old, poor-condition
(where they ARE poor) roads should be tagged (we limit ourselves to US roads
here because this is talk-us), and at what granularity. (Volker COULD do
detailed tagging, but I hear loud
13 matches
Mail list logo
