On 05/31/2011 06:26 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray > <toby.murray-re5jqeeqqe8avxtiumw...@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills >> <nathan-jiavzwzna1neowh0uzb...@public.gmane.org> wrote: >>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote: >>> >>>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor. >>>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't. >>> >>> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust >>> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced >>> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the >>> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that). >>> >>> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be >>> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on >>> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here. >> >> I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely >> accepted convention. > > That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores > the realities of where traffic goes. > > To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69>
59 and 19...which networks? Those two routes have incomplete refs. > If we stuck purely to the above > convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best). But > traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks > like. I'd probably consider both 20 and 72 as trunks based on their design looking at the NAIP footage.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us