[Tagging] Highway classification in Antarctica

[Warin]

On 26/4/24 03:40, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>
> Apr 25, 2024, 16:16 by fernando.trebien at gmail.com:
>
>     I also think that such changes also imply corrections to the following
>     section regarding how importance is to be assessed by mappers:
>
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#Assumptions
>
>     Particularly this sentence:
>
>     "In a region with poor infrastructure, a road of highest importance,
>     forming the main road network there, should be highway=trunk,
>     regardless of being a high-quality wide asphalt road or a low-quality
>     narrow track worse than highway=service in other regions."
>
>     The consensus here seems not aligned with this. This section also
>     references the following proposal:
>
>     https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Highway_key_voting_importance
>
>     Whose summary says:
>
>     "the general definition of highway=* should be changed to importance
>     for the road grid (hierarchical position in the interconnecting
>     network) instead of physical attributes"
>
>     What is missing is a statement about whether one starts judging such
>     networks by importance from the top (trunk downwards) or from the
>     bottom (tertiary upwards).
>
> Antarctica has no real road network so missing top levels of road classes
> is fine.
>
> It is also missing roads between major large cities because it has no
> major large cities.
>
> If very big island has no roads at all except single small road between
> two houses it does not mean it is highway=trunk road.
>

A can of worms...

Many of the hiking routes I have looked at use beach sections over sand. 
There is no visible 'path' yet the 'path' exists, not always in the same 
place people tend to take whatever route they like - away from the water 
or getting their toes wet. I have tagged these sections as not visible 
and made them as straight as possible to imply that it is a 'route' 
rather than a formed track.

Towns and villages also have an 'importance' level too... a place can be 
of more 'importance' that another place despite having the same 
population. The importance could be gained by having better medical 
facilities, better airport etc.

These kind of discussions have been had in Australia and I would think 
Africa, Russia ...

Please consider your own experience with less dense areas before 
condemning some flexibility in adapting things to suit other parts of 
the world?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20240426/bbc83ed0/attachment.htm>