On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel > According To Map Features than I do
If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference between an unclassified and a tertiary? If we don't have some agreed definition, the tags become meaningless since the meaning will vary widely depending on who surveyed the road. For example, if someone is writing a route planner for HGVs, it is wise to have it try and avoid unclassified roads as they are defined by the wiki. But it is not sensible to avoid a high quality dual carriageway (which seems to match some other people's definitions of an unclassified road). > What _isn't_ fine is going round removing others' work because you > disagree with it. Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have changed the classification of some of these roads until I had resurveyed them. I certainly don't consider it to be "removing someone's work" though - the way is still on the map. All I'm trying to do is standardise the tags a bit so they match the _only_ documented definition. > As for C, that's pretty much immaterial: I've spoken at a public > inquiry to get a landowner to remove an obstruction on a C "road". I > say "road", actually it was a foot-wide path from one village to > another three miles away. That was exactly my point - no one cares whether a road has a C number or not, map users just care what the road is _like_ - I don't see how you can say that a relatively narrow road with no centre line is "like" a big dual carriageway. - Steve xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nexusuk.org/ Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk