<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="auto" style="direction: ltr; margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: black; ">
Martin wrote "If it was just me I would put them [trunk] back as primary except the sections where they are built bigger".<br>
<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="direction: ltr; margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; color: black; ">
I agree! Many years ago someone changed the tagging of a lot of primary roads to "trunk<span id="ms-outlook-android-cursor"></span>" for "conceptual" reasons. I do not want to see this happen again.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div id="ms-outlook-mobile-signature" dir="auto">Sent from Galaxy S7</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Jherome Miguel <jheromemiguel@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 10, 2022 9:25:53 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org <talk-ca@openstreetmap.org><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Talk-ca] Proposed changes to road classification and related stuff</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">There's a reason why Route 117 is trunk, to indicate it’s a critical link road (it's the Trans-Can and a NHS route) and to ensure network connectivity (avoid change in classification because of build quality). And there's already the expressway=yes
tag to indicate better build (twinning, some grade separations, design features to support high speed). The main OSM render doesn't support that however, though US-centric renderers such as OSM Americana already provide a render for such roads with the tag.</div>
<div><br>
<div class="x_gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="x_gmail_attr">On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:02 PM Martin Chalifoux <<a href="mailto:martin.chalifoux@icloud.com">martin.chalifoux@icloud.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="x_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width:1px; border-left-style:solid; padding-left:1ex; border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word; line-break:after-white-space">I agree with john. I read the definition of a primary road, which is a “road that links regions or major agglomerations” and it is pretty much the same as the definition now given to trunk roads.
I am all fine with keeping primary roads for such roads that link regions of a province, what we normally call national roads. In Qc they are the 100 series. Those don’t need to be turned into trunk roads on that basis. The classic use of trunk for wider/busier/quasi-motorway
segments has the benefit if providing that information. In quebec some primary roads like the 138 and 117 were already turned into trunk for all their length (and they are very long roads) and it really didn’t add any value to the map. It was a worthless change.
Before their wider segments were highlighted as trunk while most of their length was primary, and I prefer the old way. If it was just me I would put them back as primary except the sections where they are built bigger . On the other hand the 175 has been
turned into trunk after being doubled and that is good use of trunk, showing a wider road that does not meet motorway standards. In the end ff the routing engine is too dumb to prioritize a primary road as much as it prioritize a trunk road, then it is the
routing engine that needs some fixing. And in practice trunk and primary roads rarely compete for traffic, there is not so many of them and they don’t run side by side.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Reading some of the discussion, I certainly see no consensus and in fact little support for the proposed changes. This should not be implemented in that context. I hope nobody is going ahead on this. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>