[OSM-talk] Misclassified roads
steve at nexusuk.org
Mon Jul 14 11:40:57 BST 2008
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> And that's fine: you seem to place more of an emphasis on the Gospel
> According To Map Features than I do
If you don't go by the definitions in Map Features, what definitions do
you go by? As far as you are concerned, what is the difference between an
unclassified and a tertiary? If we don't have some agreed definition, the
tags become meaningless since the meaning will vary widely depending on
who surveyed the road.
For example, if someone is writing a route planner for HGVs, it is wise to
have it try and avoid unclassified roads as they are defined by the wiki.
But it is not sensible to avoid a high quality dual carriageway (which
seems to match some other people's definitions of an unclassified road).
> What _isn't_ fine is going round removing others' work because you
> disagree with it.
Ok, so maybe I shouldn't have changed the classification of some of these
roads until I had resurveyed them. I certainly don't consider it to be
"removing someone's work" though - the way is still on the map. All I'm
trying to do is standardise the tags a bit so they match the _only_
> As for C, that's pretty much immaterial: I've spoken at a public
> inquiry to get a landowner to remove an obstruction on a C "road". I
> say "road", actually it was a foot-wide path from one village to
> another three miles away.
That was exactly my point - no one cares whether a road has a C number or
not, map users just care what the road is _like_ - I don't see how you can
say that a relatively narrow road with no centre line is "like" a big dual
xmpp:steve at nexusuk.org sip:steve at nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
More information about the talk