On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, <richiekenned...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am the editor in question. > > The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do > not necessarily agree. > > However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may > warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously connects > mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just re-classed as trunk a > few days ago) connects larger towns and cities. > > I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS: > > Interstate: Motorway > Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk > Principal Arterial: Trunk/Primary [1] > Minor Arterial: Primary > Major Collector: Secondary/Tertiary > Minor Collector: Tertiary >
I'm mostly with you on this, except, for the four lower classes, which generally speaking the following observations with tagging have been true: Interstate/Freeway (only): Motorway Expressway (only): Trunk If not one of the above, or prevailing overriding circumstances (like additional capacity or lack of capacity) don't warrant a step up or down, then: US highway: Primary (which I might rank down in very rare circumstances) State highway: Secondary (which I might rank down if it's part of a supplemental state network or up if it forms a major (5+ lane) arterial. County highway: Tertiary (which I might rank up to secondary or primary if it's 3-5 or 5+ lane (such as, say, the section line roads in Tulsa) or down if it doesn't have visible pavement markings or pavement) Generally speaking, that's the TL;DR of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us