Thanks Paul! This is much closer to how I view trunk vs. primary highways. But how can http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/ have one clear thread to users that this is case. So far I found two, if not three, conflicting definitions for highways in BC depending how you read through the wiki.
how can http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk be modified to direct people to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads ? Cheers, Ken On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: > On 1/26/2016 11:34 AM, Chandler Vancouver wrote: > >> >> To begin with I am relatively new to OSM but I am trying to figure the >> Canadian definition for trunk status and find the current definition as >> described on >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk as >> academic and not functional. And please forgive me if I covering previously >> discussed material. Also, my context might from British Columbia focus as >> well. >> >> This conversation comes up from a discussion I have had with another OSM >> contributor, so I'm posting below my response to the definition as found at >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canadian_tagging_guidelines#Trunk >> > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:British_Columbia#Highways_and_provincial_roads > is a better description of how things are actually tagged in BC in OSM. > > At least within the lower mainland and Fraser valley, the NHS is not used > for tagging. My preferred examples of this are the new Highway 17, which > didn't exist when the document was compiled, and some of the relatively > small roads linking highways to ports. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
