Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Okay folks. Coming back from not even 48 hours camping and this thread has exploded. I don't think it benefits anyone to continue in this way. Valuable insights get lost in the sheer volume of email; arguments are being repeated. I am dedicating the next Many Mappy Minutes (our monthly-ish online

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

In the US, we've always treated primary/secondary/tertiary as a way to tag importance to the road network, while physical construction was secondary. Motorway, of course, was and still is treated differently. Trunk has always been stuck in the middle between people who like me and Paul want to

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Yes, on more than one occasion back in the mists of time before armchair mappers had spread the lanes and other condition tags widely I found some pretty shitty US highways labeled as trunk, not because they are better roads, but because they happen to be long distance through routes. US412

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Bradley White wrote: > The UK/Canada system and the central Europe system both adopt > the tag in a way that makes sense for the road network they > have. We are trying to shoehorn the central European tagging > system into our country when, to me, it makes more sense to > use the UK/Canada

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 22:40:16 -0700 Bradley White wrote: > If we can determine importance (which is what the 'highway=' tag > fundamentally represents per the wiki) solely by what's on the ground, > why not just tag what's physically there, ditch the 'highway' tag >

Re: [Talk-us] Trunk

Not entirely a bad idea, but runs fundamentally in to the same issue this thread is about, if not moreso. FM 2161 would wind up as a more significant road than OR 22 in such a scenario. Never mind that OR 22 on the west side of Salem, OR is a major 50 MPH expressway going directly to the core of