[catching up; sorry if this is really redundant] Chris Lawrence <lordsu...@gmail.com> writes:
> A true "super two" freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever, > would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging > conventions. These may not be particularly common in the U.S. > (although they exist), but they are common enough around the world to > be consistent. > > Sorta-I-93 through Franconia Notch would not technically be a super > two due to the median barrier; it's two separate one-lane motorway > carriageways under OSM tagging conventions. A motorway has to be (IMHO, and from reading the wiki over the years) all of the following: divided multiple lanes in each direction controlled access no at-grade intersections Any significant or other than just-once-really-this-shouldn't deviation disqualifies it as motorway and then the right classification is trunk which means something that's sort of like a motorway except that it's deficient in one or more of the criteria. There's a fair bit of route 2 in mass that is one lane each way, divided, and controlled access. But that's trunk, not motorway, because motorways have at least two lanes in each direction. I don't understand why people want to call things that don't meet the motorway definition a motorway. Trunk exists to be "almost a motorway but not quite". Reading "super two" on wikipedia, that's very clearly trunk, because super two is not typically divided and is not typically two lanes in each direction. If I-93 is really 1 lane in each direction, it should be downgraded to trunk. Except that we sort of have a norm that if it is signed Interstate, it gets a pass on motorway standards. (I think that's the wrong thing to do.)
pgpUcjupXfaWo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us