John Smith wrote: > --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > > Where we fail is that we don't have anything less significant than > > unclassified for non-residential areas. In particular, country roads > that > > aren't particularly routable, but still have a passable > > standard of upkeep (i.e. a road, not a track). > This is what I was trying to explain.
Ok, but that's not what your proposal says on the wiki. (You're delta_foxtrot2, right? I do wish people would be consistent with names/pseudonyms...) "I am proposing highway=rural for roads that wouldn't be classified as tertiary due to low volumes of traffic. Rural roads are generally single lane, generally unsealed but all weather. Rural roads may or may not be through roads they are for connecting farms to urban areas and between urban areas where the funding hasn't been made available to seal the road." That's proposing highway=rural as something less significant than tertiary (bad, we already have unclassified for that), not something less significant than unclassified (good, we don't have anything like that in rural areas). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-RFC--highway%3Dunclassified-currently-is-too-ambiguous%2C-so-here%27s-my-proposal-to-fix-it.-tp24821055p24841081.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
