20 Dec 2019, 01:25 by ba...@ursamundi.org:
> So, for example, in the US, instead of motorway, trunk, primary, secondary,
> tertiary, perhaps something more like freeway, expressway,
> major/minor_principal (just having this would fix a *lot* of problems with
> Texas and Missouri and their
In my area there are variations on the Forest Service signs as well (“Ice House
Canyon Trail” vs “Icehouse Canyon Trail” and “Chiquito Trail” vs “Chiquita
Trail” are two examples that come to mind). I suspect some of the variations
are due to changes in spelling, etc. over time so the older
I did some mountain biking around Bend, Oregon this summer. Apparently the
Deschutes Ranger District of the US Forest Service can’t decide what to call
their trails. For example, at the Skyliners trailhead, there’s a sign that says
SKYLINER TRAIL NO. 28
JCT. WOOPS TRAIL NO 50 2
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
> to the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
> envisage taking some away.
> Not saying we should abolish
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:13 AM Mike N wrote:
> On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
> > some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
> > primary doesn???t make any sense;
>
> The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
> sense.
>
>
On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 3:03 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> > I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate
> We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the
> BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources. Perhaps we should
> create a wiki page listing
Clifford,
Thanks for your feedback.
> I've avoided BIA because their data doesn't seem accurate
We have gotten some additional feedback off list also suggesting that the
BIA data may not be as accurate as some other sources. Perhaps we should
create a wiki page listing every reservation, its
I now reiterate the fundamental struggle in this discussion (which can be
summed up as "both"):
highway=trunk is another level of granularity (above primary) to describe "high
performance OR high importance roads" (emphasis mine). Additionally,
(from the US-specific definition from our wiki):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, December 19, 2019 2:19 PM, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value to
> the U.S. map, Eric.
> We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so
I actually like your suggestion that highway=trunk does not add much value
to the U.S. map, Eric.
We love to add detail / granularity to OSM so much, it can become hard to
envisage taking some away.
Not saying we should abolish trunk right here and now, but something I'd
consider as one outcome.
Hi all,
Looking to get more people/groups involved in OSM is always a challenge. One
place I might start would be to reach out to those mappers who have last edited
the current boundaries and ask them their thoughts on this project. If you are
using JOSM editor you can use ‘Ctrl + h’ to find
I personally dislike "trunk". Its definition is vague and leaves a lot to
interpretation (and argument). It doesn't really add anything to the
information on the map, IMO. A US Highway is a US Highway regardless of
how much traffic it carries or how many stoplights it has.
Maybe if the
On 12/17/2019 10:19 PM, Evin Fairchild wrote:
some US routes are more important than others and lumping them all as
primary doesn???t make any sense;
The arguments here about relative importance of parallel routes makes
sense.
Some massive changes such as in
13 matches
Mail list logo
