Le 14/09/2016 à 12:00, joost schouppe a écrit : > This example does look wrong to > me: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/96664072
I have changed this road to tertiary. > > Maybe it would help if Michael would point out some example that look > wrong to him? Yes... > Le 14/09/2016 à 08:12, Marc Gemis a écrit : >> Here's Michael's answer: I haven't read it thoroughly yet, so I leave >> the interpretation to each of you. >> >> ----- >> Your impression and the two answers make sence to me. It's hard to >> decide the road classification by aerial view. A look beside to google >> streetview also doesn't help (and I never would map what I found >> there). >> >> May I clear some about that overpass-query? >> It only searches for residential, unclassified and tertiary. Higher >> road classes are good visible in standard mapstile and lower doesn't >> interrest in this case. The colours are blue for residential, orange >> for unclassified and green for tertiary. If you zoom in all the >> circles get to lines marking the kind of highway. You can move the >> bbox on the map and start the query again for any area you want. Don't >> use to big areas avoiding brakedown of query. Some "big residential" road could be preferred to "little" residential road in Liege. But, in Liege, the tertiary, secondary and primary roads should be used and, most of the time, it is possible to use them instead of "potential unclassified" roads. >> And reading the post of Julien, it's clear for my why mappers in >> Belgium use the value residential often not in the way the should >> according the "leading" english wiki. But discussing about some wiki >> specials would fill books and we better use the time to correct >> OSM-data and -wiki. Yes, I agree, we should correct the wiki page. Julien
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
