On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > >> >> Perhaps we should be working more towards worldwide consistency. > > > yes, please osm is an international project
> When objectively describing the features on the ground, sure. But > primary/secondary/tertiary don't do that. > yes, they are functional and it's strange that so many try to put in all the physical and administrative into a single tag. this must fail or we need > 50 values for the highway tag > > If we want to achieve worldwide consistency, we should throw > primary/secondary/tertiary out the window, and replace them with objective > facts. I don't see that happening though, so the next best solution is to > come up with objective definitions on a state by state basis. Possibly even > more locally than that in some cases. But certainly at least on a state by > state basis, since traffic laws are defined on a state by state basis. > not really, just stop putting in more interpretation into the highway tag AND start to add more tags with objective facts. fully agree this can and should be state specific. there are already many tags in use for surface, lane, network .... but usage should be extended for sure. _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
