On Sat, 28 May 2011 17:25:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
No, trunk is to primary as primary is to secondary.
Except that it's not.
It is in my criteria, which you're misrepresenting.
You described your criteria, but did not explain how trunk is more
appropriate than primary for a two lane rural highway between two
small-to-tiny cities. If you use trunk for that, there is no way to
describe (in a way that shows up on the tiles) a road which is not a
motorway but is better than the typical rural highway.
I also upgrade major state-numbered highways from secondary to
primary. This leaves more breathing room in secondary and tertiary
for
the lesser roads.
As makes sense if the highway is the most direct non-Interstate,
non-trunk route between two regionally important cities. Why would trunk
be used for the same thing? That's what I've been trying (apparently
rather poorly) to get at.
Whose route network a given highway is a part of seems to me to be a
poor differentiator. A city-maintained motorway is the same as a
state-maintained motorway, IMO. As I said before, some element of
judgement is necessary in deciding whether a four lane divided highway
really deserves trunk or whether a two lane highway really deserves
primary. If it's not regionally important and/or is a very short
segment, my answer would be no.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
