[Tagging] RFC on two proposals: Motorway indication; Expressway indication

[David ``Smith'']

> From: John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
> On 14 July 2010 14:32, David ``Smith'' <vidthekid at gmail.com> wrote:
>> motorways!"  This proposal is about separating form from function,
>> opening the possibility for things like "trunk motorways" and
>
> Erm we can already do this:
>
> highway=trunk
> oneway=yes
> lanes=2

That's a fine description of the road's importance, onewayness, and
number of lanes.  But those attributes can easily apply to roads that
are not expressways.  (What I mean by expressways is explained here:
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Vid_the_Kid/Expressway>)
This proposal is for a tag that /explicitly states/ that the road is,
physically, an expressway.  Also, there are many expressways
(typically shorter ones) that are not important enough to merit the
use of highway=trunk.

This is explained in the proposal's Rationale section.

> From: fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com>
> Please have a look at motorroad=yes/no and show the differences between that and
> your proposals on the proposal-pages.

I was not aware of this tag.  It's not significantly used in America.
I took a look at the wiki page, and it does indeed seem quite similar.
 However, it will take me time to fully grasp the precise meaning and
flavor of the terms used there, before I can determine whether the
"Motorway indication" proposal is redundant to it.  If so, a possible
outcome might be to modify the proposal to simply adding
motorroad=substandard to the existing key, as well as further
rendering enhancements and wider promotion of the key's usage.

-- 
David "Smith"
a.k.a. Vid the Kid
a.k.a. Bír'd'in

Does this font make me look fat?