I'd stick to the ABC classifications, except where a road is clearly over-classified (ie it's been bypassed, or blocked to through traffic). This can happen because of reluctance to declassify a road (which means less money to spend on maintaining it).
British A&B roads tend to be through roads between towns, and form a logical-ish structure, with B roads less busy than A roads. C-classification is a bit more random, and tends to highlight busy roads that aren't A or B roads. So it is entirely possible that a C road is busier than a B road. It's also possible that a road is busy without being officially a C road. So I think you can use the spirit of C roads to make anything busy a "tertiary". If you want to devise a system for recording traffic levels, I'd love to see it (I'd suggest mvpd=xx000, where mvpd means motor-vehicles per day), but don't try to rewrite the classification system - you'll just confuse people. Richard On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Peter Miller <peter.mil...@itoworld.com>wrote: > > I have used primary, secondary and tertiary to indicate relative > traffic levels on roads in Ipswich rather than any strict > classification. For example Landseer Road in Ipswich which is heavily > with lorries, buses and commuters, so bad that the council have > proposed building a new road to 'relieve' it. I have now been asked > to justify my tagging by another mapper who has refered to the Map > Features page which states that secondary is only for "Administrative > classification "secondary" in the UK, generally linking smaller towns > and villages". > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Highway > > Ipswich on OSM > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.0538&lon=1.1763&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF > > My approach seems to be an approach taken elsewhere, for example in > Bedford, where every secondary road does not have a B number? > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.1344&lon=-0.4517&zoom=13&layers=B000FTF > > Should we update the Map Features page or should we follow it more > carefully? > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
