On Sun, 29 May 2011 00:57:30 -0400, Anthony wrote:
That's quite the misrepresentation of what I'm saying.
It was an exact quote.
You may have heard of the concept of the "pull quote." It describes
using partial quotations to misrepresent someone else's position.
Again, my point is
that trunk is much more useful (especially to people using rendered
mapnik
tiles) if it is mainly restricted to four lane divided sorts of
roads here
in the US.
And my point is 1) that you aren't going to convince people to do
that; and 2) that if you could convince people to tag the number of
lanes, you'd be better off having them use a tag which says the
number
of lanes.
I find it difficult to believe that you object so strenuously to making
it simple to tag one of the main things an end user of a road map
desires to know when looking at said map. Is it a practical "you can't
get people to agree to that" objection, or a "I don't think it should be
done that way" objection?
Once again, there is, to most non-mapgeeks a class of road which is
less than a motorway, but better than all other classes of road. In my
part of the country, most people call it an expressway. This should be
easy to tag, so that the map is most useful to end users (and simple to
edit for casual editors, who you're almost certainly not going to
convince to tag width and lane count on every edit). Trunk seems to fit
that bill, and is used that way already in many areas. It was used that
way in a lot more areas until one specific editor decided he wanted to
edit roads in places he's never even been to use that designation. I
can't think of a downside to using it that way.
What advantage does trunk have over primary in any of the mentioned
examples?
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
