They're already numbers‽<br><br>From most important to least important.<br><br>0 - Trunk<br>1 - Primary<br>2 - Secondary (the 2 is literally in the name)<br>3 - Tertiary (the 3 is also in the name)<br><br>This isn't rocket science.<br><br><br>Sent from ProtonMail mobile<br><br><br><br>-------- Original Message --------<br>On Sep 16, 2021, 3:56 PM, Paul Johnson < baloo@ursamundi.org> wrote:<blockquote class="protonmail_quote"><br><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 2:26 PM Jmapb <<a href="mailto:jmapb@gmx.com">jmapb@gmx.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>I can't say exactly whose word I took on these definitions, or
when or where -- probably some combination of the wiki, the
mailing list, conversations, changeset comments, and other
channels -- but I've been under the naive impression that this was
a settled question. It seems it's not! If the nature of the low
end of the highway classification hierarchy is indeed up for
debate, I'd say the NY proposal's recommendations for anything
below tertiary might be better replaced with a simple text that
recommends following standard tagging practices and local
conventions.<br></p></div></blockquote><div> Probably could be fixed by replacing highway=whatever with a numerical hierarchy but that sounds too much like actually fixing a broken tagging scheme for OSM to actually handle based on previous discussions on fixing broken parts of the tagging scheme.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>