<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 7/22/2015 11:43 AM, Daniel Begin wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:COL129-DS371125D846E08161B703E94830@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So
far, I understand we have 2.5 votes for tagging trunk/motorway
all roads identified as “core route” in document (a); 0.5
against (I am still torn between the two approaches!-)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">More
comments would be appreciated </span></p>
</blockquote>
Such an approach would be inconsistent with how highways are tagged
in BC and expectations of locals. It would also make BC quite
different than across the boarder in Washington.<br>
<br>
I can think of several motorways and trunk roads which are not on
the list in the PDF, and many of the roads on the list are primary,
or in at least one case, secondary. Some of the roads not on the
list are more important in the transportation network than ones on
it.<br>
<br>
The criteria being proposed are also inherently unverifiable. We map
the world, not what a government database says.<br>
<br>
What about new roads? There's a new route that's opened up, and it's
a mix of trunk and motorway, but it's not listed in the NHS report.
To tag it primary when less significant roads constructed to a lower
standard are tagged as trunk and motorway would be absurd.<br>
<br>
Because it has a lot of freight, it probably will become a NHS road
at some point. Does its classification magically change when nothing
has changed on the ground?<br>
</body>
</html>