Another thing worth adding is that if we do decide to tag two-lane roads as trunk, you will still be able to tell the undivided two-lane roads apart from the divided four-lane roads, even at zoom 5. I'm sure many of you have noticed if you've looked at Canada at zoom 5, you can see that some of the trunks are thicker than others. If you zoom in more, you'll notice that said thicker roads are divided/ dual carriageway, whereas the thinner ones are undivided roads. Also, the same is true with motorways, so we could theoretically tag super-twos as motorways and still tell them apart from actual Interstate freeways. This has been done extensively in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and I quite like it. But we probably shouldn't go down that rabbit hole at this point...
-Evin (Compdude) On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Can you explain what your goal/desire is for these non-divided highways > >to be labeled trunk? Is it about a small-scale render showing them, > >when if they are primary, Alaska looks empty when it shouldn't? Some > >sense of hierarchical views of road networks? Something else? > > @Bradley - I didn't tag them originally and don't particularly care how > they're tagged. Routing in rural Alaska is pretty simple because there's > only one way to get from Anchorage to Fairbanks and to Homer, where I live > LOL. That's why I prefaced my comment by saying I have no stake in the > outcome of this conversation. I only want to stay tuned in so I can > understand any changes to our rationale. > > Dave > > On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Bradley White <theangrytom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > Message: 4 >> > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 21:24:20 -0500 >> > From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> >> > To: OpenStreetMap talk-us list <talk-us@openstreetmap.org> >> > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Trunk >> > Message-ID: >> > <CAMPM96rCyLRupvPJk=cBtqfS2U6NrDj5SmooBUYV33SSDFRCHw@mail.g >> mail.com> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 9:10 PM, Bradley White < >> theangrytom...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I reject this because it will lead to an overemphasis of relatively >> smaller >> > roads. >> >> I disagree, and would be more inclined to say that this is exactly >> what we need. The US has loads of primaries, and fairly so, but this >> tends to bury the more important among those. >> >> Even if there is a strict, verifiable criteria set for what >> constitutes an expressway, I don't think it's what we should use to >> determine the importance of a road, and thus use of the trunk tag. I >> don't think it's a term that, in the US, has meaning to the average >> non-highway-engineer citizen in the same way that a freeway does. >> Other countries that lack a clear expressway system, like Canada and >> the UK, use the trunk tag (successfully) in the same way that I am >> suggesting the U.S. use it. The UK/Canada system and the central >> Europe system both adopt the tag in a way that makes sense for the >> road network they have. We are trying to shoehorn the central European >> tagging system into our country when, to me, it makes more sense to >> use the UK/Canada system. Why does it benefit map users in the US to >> set the second most important class of roads equivalent to roads that >> are physically an expressway, especially when this could easily be >> tagged separately? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-us mailing list >> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >> > > > > -- > Dave Swarthout > Homer, Alaska > Chiang Mai, Thailand > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
