I'm coming to sympathise with the rendering gods, this really is going round in circles isn't it!
The advantage of a new highway tag is a nice clear match between tag and reality, leading to better performance by taggers, renderers and routers. The disadvantage is confusion in the transitionary period (which could be years) and the effort of retagging. I'm concluding that - while you wouldn't start from here - the existing tagging can be made to work, though the documentation should be improved. We don't really need another level in the countryside, and there are other ways of coping with the fact that a rural unclassified and an urban unclassified are physically different (I would propose recommending the use of abutters for urban ones, and discouraging it for rural ones). I don't think the proposal for highway=rural is going to be agreed (though making it was helpful in progressing the debate). So I'll probably have a go at improving the wording in the wiki (initially by adding rather than deleting). Richard On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:02 AM, John Smith <delta_foxt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > --- On Thu, 6/8/09, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > > > 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). > > The distinction is that highway=rural isn't as well maintained, or has as > much traffic as highway=residential, so if residential is lower than > unclassified, then rural is lower than residential, but higher than track > > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
