[Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Georg Feddern]

Am 20.02.2019 um 10:22 schrieb Florian Lohoff:
> So for me retagging residential to unclassified is broken under the
> assumption that unclassified is something "better" than residential.
>
> It is even more broken when there is residential usage in which case
> unclassified is inappropriate.
>
> While discussing i found that there was some modification to the German
> version of unclassified not saying that unclassified is something
> "better" but suggesting that an unclassified should be dragged into
> city limits until the next higher class street. This lets user
> assume that unclassified is some higher priority than residential.
>
>
> I was treating those streets identical for the last 10+ years and only
> the city limits gave the indication whether to use unclassified or
> residential.
>
> Am i wrong with that usage?

Even the english wiki says:
"The tag highway 
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway>=unclassified is used 
for minor public roads typically at the lowest level of the 
interconnecting grid network."

As part of the interconnecting grid network it should connect to at 
least unclassified or higher roads - unless it is a dead end settlement.
Tagging a through connecting road only because it is inside a city limit 
as residential makes no sense.
And usually a connecting road from outside a city limit has at least a 
bit more traffic as an inner-city-only residential.
So the conclusion an unclassified has a bit higher priority than a 
residential is not far from reality.

Otherwise there is often the problem to tag the main access roads inside 
a bigger residential area.
The practice to tag those as unclassified for a bit higher priority may 
not be optimal - but suitable.

This discussion - and usage - is some years old now - and I thought you 
had at least knowledge of it from the german forum.

Georg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190220/33b66f8d/attachment.html>