[Tagging] Road hierarchy
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>
> 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...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging