2009/8/5 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com>: > I'd agree that it should be "importance" for > trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for > single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing > (judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends > to align to the importance, but what we actually tend to tag is the > importance (usually based on the type of signs).
Yes, I agree that there is some highway-types that are defined legally and not according to their importance (motorroad, pedestrian, living_street, cycleway, bridleway, etc.). > However, motorway is physical no, I don't agree. A highway becomes motorway when it get's legally promoted to be a motorway (by the motorway-sign this is indicated). If there are constructions on a motorway and the separation of the opposite lanes is removed and the lanes get narrow and there is a maxspeed of 40km/h it still remains a motorway, at least in Germany this is the case. On the other hand a street whichs entirely meets the physical requirements of a motorway (separated lanes, emergency lane, lots of lanes, slip roads etc.) will not be a motorway unless it is legally designated to be so (and signs are errected). > and many of the other highway tags are > defined in physical terms, or in terms of access rights. So the initial > sentence needs to allow for more variety than just "importance". Yes, I agree. That's why I suggested "mainly by their importance". But I would encourage us to leave physical out. We will gain by a clear distinction between importance and physical tags (which we already have: lanes, width, surface, separated ways) and I would also leave out those classes that require legal designation and therefore remain unambiguous (motorway, living_street, pedestrian). There will be no confusion about what is a motorway, but there are constant debates about primaries, secondaries and tertiary. Also in town the physical state is of few help, as it depends highly on the size of the town what e.g. a primary looks like. Furthermore, the physical state will in most cases correlate to the importance. > On the residential/unclassified question, I do tend to use > highway=unclassified for non-residential urban roads. I'm not entirely > comfortable using the same tag for industrial estate roads but aren't they not just what you defined: "non-residential urban roads"? > and narrow > country lanes (and it probably makes matters harder for renderers than > necessary). actually I never faced a problem with this. Do you have an example? cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
