<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>7 cze 2022, 15:36 od a.kasparas@gmc.lt:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>First, the official classification outside cities in Lithuania is quite good. I know just one road which do not have road number when it probably should have. I don't know location where change of classification would be appropriate. We would be glad to
make an exception for road or two which would produce illogical result.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">glad to hear this!<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Second, every year some country roads are paved. This is done taking into account importance of the stretch of the road (plus, if it goes over some village). So, important stretches gets paved and upgraded in the OSM database. If more gaps are left, then
the whole road is less important in country's or wider context. So state of map reflects state on the ground. In our book this is how things should be.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Also when it results in a short strips of higway=tertiary upgraded to highway=secondary<br></div><div dir="auto">because section of say 30m or 100m or 300m was paved?<br></div><div dir="auto">As far as I know, this is really unusual and goes against how highway=.../primary/secondary/<br></div><div dir="auto">teriary/... is in general mapped or should be mapped.<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Third, there are different legal requirements while driving on paved roads and on unpaved roads -- 90 vs 70 km/h max speed, right of the way for driving on first vs second.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">this, as far as I know, can be easily achieved by tagging and using surface=* tags<br></div><div dir="auto">(some places have different legal rules on lit/unlit single/double carriageways,<br></div><div dir="auto">inside/outside settled areas and so on and trying to fit it into highway=* classes is rarely<br></div><div dir="auto">the best idea)<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Forth, in all practical applications we could come up at the time of the decision we expected that one will work with set where all or none of secondary and tertiary will be included. So, we considered this to be safe.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">sorry, I do not really understand this part<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Fifth, number of map errors in LT is way lower than in neighboring countries.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I am a bit skeptical about count of QA errors as map quality metric, but it is<br></div><div dir="auto">probably better to leave it for another discussion (though I am also a validator<br></div><div dir="auto">enthusiast)<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>But this does not mean that he could do whatever he wants. I do remember when mine and his opinions were different. But technical arguments always prevailed. On some occasions mine were accepted, on others -- Tomas'. So, he is not a dictator here.<br></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Even more glad to hear this!<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>