On 28/08/2009, at 9:23 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 08/28/2009 03:46 AM, Gervase Markham wrote: >> If dieterdriest has found a number of people who've been ignoring the >> definition, > > Nobody (that I know of) has been ignoring the definition. It's just > that the definitions didn't match the top-leveldescription. *None* of > the definitions of the highway values has ever described the physical > characteristics of the road, apart from motorway in a very limited > sense.
Indeed. I'm wondering how things like "Administrative classification in the UK, generally linking larger towns" (primary, from the highway=* page) could possibly be taken as describing the physical structure of the road. Personally, I think that the road hierarchy from trunk down to tertiary doesn't really have a strong definition, and that region- specific mappings (the International Equivalence table) is what people generally go off[0]. The distinction between motorway and trunk seems to be somewhat consistent globally, and the sub-tertiary values (unclassified, residential, et al) have globally useful definitions, even if people don't always agree on what they are. [0] Although I just had to fix the Australia section to match the Australian Tagging Guidelines and what people do. The ABC classification mappings were off by one level _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
