highway=rural seems a logical choice. Perhaps just work out a semi-rigid definition, such as:
Any road which is: a) Primarily boarded by land used for primary production and b) Exists primarily to provide transport to service the properties adjacent to it. Ie: the majority of drivers on the road are traveling to or from a property rather than between rural centers. Thoughts? ----- Original Message ----- From: John Smith <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:54 am Subject: Re: [talk-au] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag To: [email protected] > > > > --- On Tue, 4/8/09, Martin Koppenhoefer > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and > > I don't > > think the road systems are all the same. I know that there > > is big > > differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't > > work as > > long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have > > to drive on > > the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go > > by car. I > > didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to > > work > > everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given > > the > > relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible > > worldwide. > > Liz, he has a point and it's very clear the Germans aren't going > to let this go, the only solution regardless of who is right, > wrong or indiff or who got there first is to replace > highway=unclassified to something else. > > Then make this explicit in the main wiki pages what it exactly means. > > Anyone have any objection to highway=rural? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
