[Tagging] Road hierarchy

Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
Mon Aug 5 05:25:25 UTC 2019

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:

> I just reverted it.  And added some clarification (some may disagree and
> think I've murkified it)
> based on why I think those words were removed back in February.  Feel free
> to fix my fixes.

Your statement added:

	"but which are not normally used as through routes (which would usually be
	classified highways or unclassified highways)."

I disagree on this. I dont think we have consensus that residential
are not for through traffic. Our routers/navigators dont treat it like
that. And if we assume so there is a HUGE difference in unclassified and
residential we dont actually yet have.

And its not the claim which has been removed in February.

	"but which are not a classified or unclassified highways."

This is a statement which unclassified carries aswell:

	In short, when other highway=* tags are more applicable, use those
	instead. If a public road is of lesser importance than what's called a
	highway=tertiary in your region, and is also not a highway=residential, a
	highway=service, or a highway=track, then it's probably an unclassified road."	

So the statement removed in February  is a "NOOP" statement. Saying

	"you cant be A if you are B"

Now you changed it to something completely different with additional claims.

Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190805/3542bbd4/attachment.sig>

More information about the Tagging mailing list