<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-PH style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA>></span>Maybe it's just me, but quite frankly I have no idea which position</p><p class=MsoNormal>you're opposing here. So it's a bit difficult to mediate. Can you give</p><p class=MsoNormal>a specific example of a road your comment applies to?</p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-CA><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal>It goes back on this point Martin suggested a downgrade of Route 112 in northern Quebec where it’s becomes a two-lane, that basically boils down into the North American trunk definition debate that lingered south of the border for years. The proposal here is to retag expressways to use the expressway=yes tag, and the highway=* tag based on importance. Adding to that, Martin had claimed someone years ago promoted many two-lane highways that are NHS core routes in the NHS, and he say it hasn’t been discussed. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Going on, I just started a spin-off thread of this discussion to focus on harmonizing trunk usage in Quebec. Much like with Southwestern Ontario, Quebec has a lot of usages of trunk to indicate expressways (“voies rapides”) to the south of the St. Lawrence as well as Greater Montreal.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>It may be my problem as I started a thread about a general topic like road classification, but at this time, the focus of the debate is on the trunk tag and routings. The proposal here is not just to deal with disconnected trunks which are tagged as such for being an expressway (“voies rapides” in French), but also what should be an ideal trunk routing, since I proposed for multiple provinces additional trunks in addition to what has been in place based on the NHS, and some of which has issues (e.g. Val d’Or-Saguenay via Routes 113 and 167, whose issue is with the proposed routing’s remoteness, and Vancouver-Squamish-Whistler-Quesnel/Prince George via BC 99, whose issue is with the dangerous segments of the Sea to Sky Highway which would be promoted to trunk under the proposal).</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>