<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"><base href="x-msg://402/"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2015-07-22, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Begin <<a href="mailto:jfd553@hotmail.com">jfd553@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">Since then, the document (a) is used by some contributors to recode primary roads to trunk because it is cited in the Canadian tagging guideline (c). IMHO, the problem is that this document (a) defines 3 Route Categories (Core, Feeder, Northern and Remote) that does not fit with OSM highway definitions.</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div lang="EN-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; "><div class="WordSection1" style="page: WordSection1; "><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "><o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; "> <o:p></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">I prefer looking at OSM highway as “infrastructure categories” –my understanding of OSM definitions– rather than as “strategic categories” as described in (a) and partially promoted in (c). However, both are of interest as long they are applied consistently (d).</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In my opinion, the "strategic category" approach better fits the spirit of the British classification system that OSM highway tagging is based on. There is no regard whatsoever for access control there - I think there are even some controlled access secondary roads. </div><div><br></div><div>It's the approach I've been using for my tagging in the Maritimes. I (and apparently others) have been using that National Highway System map to define trunk roads in the absence of any other Canadian equivalent to the British trunk system.</div></div><br><div>Just my 2 cents….</div><div>JPK</div></body></html>