<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:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I see what you’re saying; I guess none of us really considered that there are some people who like to tag really short segments of road as freeway, like when there’s only one interchange. Maybe we also need to come up with a rule that any freeway that is not part of the Interstate highway system needs to have at least two (or maybe three?) consecutive interchanges and be at least like 5 miles long. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Also, I want to emphasize that I still support keeping expressways and divided highways as trunk even if they’re not a US highway and/or not in the NHS. (there are certainly some examples of that here in western Washington state) They certainly are important by virtue of having been built the way they are. Also, I don’t think that just because a road ceases to be an expressway (or super two), it isn’t as important. In some cases, states just have limited funding to upgrade a road from just a two-lane road to a divided highway, even though the road might really need it.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Also, I never liked how more important state routes (which naturally are tagged as primary) are at the same level as two lane US routes, even though one is more important than the other. For example, I see that in northern California, we have both CA 1 tagged as primary, and US 101 is also tagged as primary north of Willits. (except for the four lane sections) US 101 is more important than CA 1—it’s more meant for trucks and for getting from point A to point B as fast as possible, whereas CA 1 is more for the scenic drive and tagging it as secondary would not be appropriate because it’s certainly famous enough that it should be primary. So US 101 really ought to be tagged as trunk; by only tagging divided highways as trunk, we’re essentially letting an entire highway class go to waste. </p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Also, the same is true with the three highways currently tagged as primary that cross the Cascade Mountains in Washington—two of them, US 2 and US 12 are kept open in the winter, whereas the other (WA 20) is not. However, WA 20 is still an important east-west route and it crosses the whole state. But because the part over the mountains isn’t kept open in winter, it’s not as important as US 2 or US 12, but as a major state highway, it should still be tagged as primary.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-Evin</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='border:none;padding:0in'><b>From: </b><a href="mailto:theangrytomato@gmail.com">Bradley White</a><br><b>Sent: </b>Tuesday, May 4, 2021 8:28 PM<br><b>To: </b><a href="mailto:evindfair@gmail.com">Evin Fairchild</a><br><b>Cc: </b><a href="mailto:talk-us@openstreetmap.org">OpenStreetMap talk-us list</a><br><b>Subject: </b>Re: US Trunk road tagging</p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Here are some counterpoints as to why I'm not completely on board with</p><p class=MsoNormal>"importance" tagging yet:</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The issue of floating "trunk" segments on the main slippy map is</p><p class=MsoNormal>awful, agreed. However, I think this is at least in part a</p><p class=MsoNormal>cartographical compromise rather than a data/categorization problem. I</p><p class=MsoNormal>think a US-oriented map styling that weighs US/state route</p><p class=MsoNormal>designations more heavily than OSM classifications when deciding</p><p class=MsoNormal>rending prominence would result in much less arguing about this.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I also worry that adopting a strictly "importance"-based definition</p><p class=MsoNormal>for trunk roads will induce an over-zealous use of 'motorway', a</p><p class=MsoNormal>problem the US already has (trying to tag every single time a divided</p><p class=MsoNormal>road has any kind of grade separation as 'motorway' is bad tagging,</p><p class=MsoNormal>but prevalent around the US). I think the fact that so many US mappers</p><p class=MsoNormal>are so eager to tag every singular divided grade-separated interchange</p><p class=MsoNormal>as 'motorway' (regardless of what comes before or after the</p><p class=MsoNormal>interchange) speaks to the fact that many mappers expect to see a</p><p class=MsoNormal>rendering distinction between a plain-old highway and a more</p><p class=MsoNormal>freeway-like road. Removing an in-between category will exacerbate</p><p class=MsoNormal>poor use of the 'motorway' tag, unless stricter guidelines are put in</p><p class=MsoNormal>place for 'motorway' use in tandem.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>This is the crux of the argument to me: is a road being constructed to</p><p class=MsoNormal>an "expressway" standard significant enough to bestow its own</p><p class=MsoNormal>classification in the importance hierarchy?</p><p class=MsoNormal>I'm *slightly* more convinced that the answer is yes. If we accept</p><p class=MsoNormal>freeways as being, strictly by physical construction & with no regard</p><p class=MsoNormal>to the importance of the route they carry, important enough to warrant</p><p class=MsoNormal>its own class, then I don't think it's a big stretch to have another</p><p class=MsoNormal>category just beneath it for roads a layperson might call a freeway,</p><p class=MsoNormal>but that a roads geek knows is not. I certainly know of some freeways</p><p class=MsoNormal>that are nowhere near important enough to need rendering on low zoom,</p><p class=MsoNormal>but it's a compromise we accept.</p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>