Mark Williams wrote: > Hi Guys, > > Perhaps in certain cases the physical functionality of the road may > need to have higher priority than its network classification (as in > Nics' example). I think we all know of roads that are unclassified or > secondary etc. that seem to be "major" routes! This is possibly driven > by the changing demography in S.A. > > But, again, this is interpretation... And this is why we are always > going to get people changing tags. > > I, for one, am quite happy to tag the M39 as a primary road - it is a > main feeder from Kempton/Tembisa to the N1 after all - and tag the M16 > as a secondary road or even tertiary collector (using Pauls' > interpretation). > > Unless something can be clearly defined, there will be issues. > > Paul has put forward a suggestion for classification which does make > sense. I think we need more input from the regular "mappers" and users > of maps. > > Are we stirring up a hornet's nest?
I believe I may have originally been responsible for that low/high distinction amongst M routes. I have come to realise that it doesn't actually make sense, and in Cape Town I've been tagging more freely. (For example, I tagged the M63 (Rhodes Drive) as "primary" because it's an important route. I still think that in the rural areas, the distinction between N roads, Rxx roads and Rxxx roads is a good one to follow; in my experience (in the Western Cape) it does seem to map quite closely to the actual size and condition of the road. But in the urban areas we may need to change our approach to a more functional scheme. Cheers, Adrian _______________________________________________ Talk-ZA mailing list Talk-ZA@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-za
