[Tagging] Road hierarchy
pla16021 at gmail.com
Mon Aug 5 10:33:44 UTC 2019
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 06:26, Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen 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
> > 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)."
Indeed it did.
> 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.
If I look at my town, there are several roads which are
officially-designated tertiary routes
for through traffic which have houses all along them. Because they are
tertiary routes it is sensible to mark them as such and not as residential
roads in town with houses along them are not officially-designated tertiary
Sometimes, such as road re-surfacing or the annual fair, an
route may be closed off and traffic diverted through the residential
roads. But those
diversions are longer routes and involve three extra right-angle (or nearly
> 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:
Did you look at the comment he/she left about the reason for the change?
interpreted "unclassified" in its common sense and not in the UK road
sense. To that person, "residential" is a classification and therefore
unclassified. In OSM "unclassified" means a quaternary route which many of
interpret as not being a residential road.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging