[talk-au] secondary_link

[Jack Burton]

On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 17:34 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> I didn't do it completely off the top of my head, I did think "I wonder
> if secondary_link and tertiary_link will work?" so I threw in a couple
> of them, waited for information freeway to update, saw secondary_link
> DID work and tertiary_link didn't so I just assumed someone hadn't
> updated Map Features and it was a workable option. As for the using
> them in the wrong place well that's been made clearer to me now and
> I've cleaned up nearly all those issues near me now anyway.
> 
> > Having thought about it a bit now, I think secondary_link and probably
> > tertiary_link as well should be made valid values for the highway tag.
> > But we should probably introduce this as a proposed feature on the
> > wiki for a while before actually using them, hopefully getting at
> > least the main renderers to recognise them first.
> 
> Guess the validity of this depends on exactly how those roads are
> defined. Which is of course issue of that other thread ;)

Okay. I didn't realise that secondary_link worked correctly with
osmarender. Given that's the case, let's keep using it, and I promise
not to butcher any more of them. All that remains is to get it
documented on the Map Features & Tag:Highway wiki pages.

tertiary_link may require some more effort to get off the ground...

> > Where
> > residential roads have slip lanes, they often have addresses on them
> > (cf. slip lanes on more major roads), so would need to verify which
> > street at the junction those addresses belong to (quick look at street
> > numbers for continuity should do the trick), then name the slip lane
> > accordingly.
> > 
> > As an alternative for use with highway=unclassified &
> > highway=residential, would tagging the slip lanes and/or central
> > turning lanes as highway=service be suitable?
> 
> Ah now you are talking about 'turn left anytime with care' type lanes
> where the "_link" option kind of fits, my thoughts were once I realised
> anything < secondary wouldn't work with _link and given they're
> generally pretty rare just label them as the existing road type with
> name.

Where they have addresses on them, so we can verify what street they're
part of, I agree. Where they don't have addresses on them, there's no
way of knowing for sure which of the two intersecting streets they form
part of, so I don't think a name would be appropriate.

Cheers,

Jack.