On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
> for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade
> shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings,
> UK-style).
That's still too much of a physical definition (:
How about:
highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access
to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in
built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting
roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used
for passing through the rural area.
A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on
such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for
cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing
them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on
rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width
and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes
or ways).
A problem could be that rural areas may have a whole network of roads that
all look the same. I suppose they can all be tagged highway=rural in such
a case(?), but does that match the above description?
Christiaan
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
