[Tagging] Is it possible to have highway=unclassified with ref tag?

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Tue May 8 00:25:45 UTC 2018

On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 7:19 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> writes:
> > But when a highway has an officially assigned ref doesn't that define it
> as
> > "classified"? I don't have a large stake in this discussion but it would
> You would think.  But no.
> In the UK, there is a notion of A/B/C roads, and then unclassified.  I
> gather this means they are part of the network but not declared one of
> A/B/C.
> I was in Scotland (in the highlands just off Skye) in 2016, and saw a
> road that was U, and signed as UXXXX (a real number, but I don't
> remember it).  It was even more minor than the nearby C road.
> > seem to me that any road so ranked by the authorities should not be
> tagged
> > as unclassified.
> If you think of it as A/B/C/D where A is the most important
> (non-Interstate) roads and D the least, where D roads are just barely
> worthy of being numbered, but that we call D as U instead because that's
> what they do in the UK, I think you are not that far off.
> Around me, unclassified is typically used for roads that are somewhat
> more important than others, but not to the level of being numbered.

And it's not hard to adapt to other places, for the most part.  It's about
the only sensible way to deal with Texas with it's multitudes of primary
state highways (secondary in OSM parlance) and secondary state highways
(generally tertiary in OSM parlance, since they're (mostly) all equal in
importance).  Otherwise you'd have to work out a ranking system on this
that goes into quaternary, quinery, sextary, septery...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180507/3a3ec1b2/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list