[talk-au] (LONG) Adelaide Highway Classification (was: Highway Classification Issues)

[Jack Burton]

On Mon, 2008-03-10 at 19:46 +1030, Darrin Smith wrote:
> Rest assured I won't change any existing definitions from now on until
> we sort this out. 

Okay, me neither (excepting any _links that don't match their associated
way type, as you pointed out in the other thread).

> > > I propose that all "A" routes in Adelaide and only "A" Routes are
> > > labelled trunk. 
> > 
> > I don't think this makes sense. Here's why:
> > 
> > Firstly, I'll get the two red herrings out of the way: if I recall
> > correctly, the Gawler Bypass is signposted as A20, but it's actually a
> > motorway. Similarly, the Port River Expressway signposted as A9 (and
> > A13 for the part that used to be called the South Rd-Salisbury Hwy
> > Connector Road), but also is a motorway. But I don't really think you
> > intended the trunk definition to include those two.
> 
> Ok, good point, that's a lack of my definition which should have
> included "unless the route is superseeded by being near-freeway
> conditions in which case it should be a motorway" or something similar.
> The motorway tag I think always dupes any other lower tag.

Agreed.

> > Leaving those two aside, trunk routes (at least in urban areas) imply
> > the big, heavily trafficed, wide, long, most significant roads within
> > the greater metropolitan area.
> 
> This isn't the definition as I see it from the wiki:
> 
> highway=trunk. "Metroads" in the cities where they exist, or other
> similar cross-city trunk routes in cities where they do not.

Yes, a circular definition -- I'd missed that. Perhaps "cross-city
arterial routes" rather than "cross-city trunk routes" might make more
sense in a definition of "trunk".

> Going by how metroads are used in the relevant cities there are roads
> of lower quality that some of the roads you are proposing to eliminate
> labelled as turnk roads (southern end of metroad 3 in sydney comes
> immediately to mind).
> 
> All the met-roads in other cities are about the cross-city nature of
> things rather than the quality of the road. I would suggest the only 2
> "A" routes in Adelaide that don't fit this rule are the A22 and the A14.
> And yes the southern portion of the A15 past Norlunga Centre is another
> case that's debatable.

A6 is not cross-city either, well, at least I didn't think it was until
I saw your comments below about seeing A6 signposted in the Eastern
suburbs.

Nor are A5, A7, A10 or A20, but they are all significant major arterial
routes that I think everyone would agree should stay as highway=trunk.

A11 isn't cross-city either, but I'm still undecided on that one.

> However even though I don't think they deserve it, I think it's much
> easier to define it as "all A roads" and be able to display that than
> make a list that everyone keeps debating about.

If highway status is to determined solely by route class, why bother
even having a highway tag -- you could render roads based on the ref tag
instead. And perhaps, for an alternative rendering designed to highlight
numbered routes, that's not such a bad idea.

But my understanding was that the highway tag should describe what you
will find when you get there - size/capacity (relative to the city it's
in, of course), nature of junctions, usefulness for navigation, etc. -
whilst the ref tag should describe where it fits into the national or
state road numbering scheme.

> > * Anzac Highway as far as the coner of Tapleys Hill/Brighton Roads
> 
> Actually I'm not sure about the tagging of A5 on this one as a side
> note. IIRC last time I was down that way the A5 stopped at Brighton
> Road (no A5 ahead at that point, and nothing at all at the next
> junction). So perhaps we need to check that's the case (I don't trust
> my memory enough on this one). and pull  back the A5 there :)

I'm not 100% sure either. Will check next time I'm down that way
(possibly tomorrow).

> > * Glen Osmond Road from the cnr of Greenhill Road to the Freeway
> 
> Part of this road isn't even an "A" Route, so does this suddenly open
> us to defining other roads as trunk if we think they're busy enough? 

It's the main route into the CBD for traffic arriving in Adelaide on the
M1, including most traffic from the East Coast.

> > * The portion of Fullarton Road that has an A reference
> 
> This is one easily questioned for example, what makes it special/ sure
> the A1 goes along it but if Glen Osmond road is a trunk to carry all
> the traffic into the city, what purpose does Fullarton Road server
> except to carry a few wandered who didnt make the A17 turn past the
> city? 

Hmm, good point. The bit between Glen Osmond & Greenhill Roads (A1) is
wide, heavily trafficed and generally trunk-like. As far as the A21
portion goes, I guess I'm contradicting myself more than a little here,
but I think it'd look a bit silly if the A21 didn't link up to itself as
a trunk -- after all it's a circle route. 

> > * Salisbury Highway/John Rice Avenue
> 
> This is another one I though long and hard about trunking, after all
> it's right next to Main North Road raelly (2km seperating them)...

Yes, I can see this one is debatable. On the one hand, it's just the
main road through Salisbury & surrounds. On that basis, it'd only be a
secondary. But on the other hand, it's kind of still at least the
logical extension of South Road (ignoring the bit that got turned into
the Expressway), linking it with Main North Road, which would make it a
trunk. It's also one of the slowest-moving main roads I've come across
in Adelaide ;)

If you think primary is a better designation than trunk, I won't object.
I think this one could go either way.

> > I'm 50/50 on Payneham Road/Lower North East Road -- it's a road of
> > importance (definitely at least primary), but not the main trunk route
> > in the area (that would be North East Road).
> 
> How far away does a road have to be to be another 'trunk' road? Do we
> now apply this there too?

Point taken. I'd be happy either way with this one.

> > Likewise, with the A15 (Tapleys Hill Road/Brighton Rd/Lonsdale Rd/etc.
> > etc.). Again, it's definitely a road of importance (at least primary),
> > but particularly at the Southern end, I'd say not the main trunk route
> > in the area (that would be Main South Road). For example, if you look
> > at the area South of Seaford Road, Main South Road is currently
> > tagged as primary, whereas Commercial Road (A15) is tagged as trunk,
> > despite Main South Road being a much longer & wider road, with higher
> > speed limits, greater traffic, more link-style access roads, less
> > direct intersections, better signage and servicing more destinations.
> 
> Actually quality wise the only way Main South Road is better than
> Commerical road to that point now is speed. Commerical road is by far a
> higher quality road south of point where MSR becomes the B23.

That may be true once you get past Seaford Rise (it's been too long
since I was last down that far), but I still think that at least going
past Seaford & Seaford Rise, Main South Road is more trunk-like than
Commercial Road.

> > I think the A16 is tagged correctly at present (trunk from the corner
> > of Port Road to the corner of North East Road, then primary beyond
> > that.
> > 
> > UPDATE: Just checked the map. I didn't realise that the A16 continued
> > up the LeFevre Peninsula. That part definitely should not be trunk
> > (probably okay left as primary).
> 
> And yet it's considered by the Transport department to be one of the
> few "A" routes in it's highest classification.
> (See
> http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/transport_network/facts_figures/traffic_volumes.asp
> - ANOTHER potential definition source for what constitutes each level
> of highway (type 6 maps to trunk, 7 to primary, 8 to secondary and 9 to
> tertiary quite well actually but AGAIN there's some odd definitions in
> there, like Cormack road) and I'm reasonably sure it will become an
> 'Auslink' road once the port river expressway bridges are complete (if
> it's not already).

Those maps are quite interesting - I'd never come across them before, so
thanks for the reference.

And you're right -- looking at them, the type 6 roads are almost all
what I would consider trunks. I wouldn't like to extend the analogy to
type 7 roads though: there seem to be far more of them on the DoT maps
than would be a reasonable number of primary roads for Adelaide.
 
> > I think that's the problem. The reference indicators need to be on the
> > map, so people can use the MABC signs as navigational aids, but I
> > don't think they should define the highway= tag -- at least, not in
> > metro Adelaide, and probably not in other metro areas either.
> 
> You better go tell the others then ;) They are defining features at
> least at the trunk and primary levels in every other Australia City. I

The only other city I've spent much time with in OSM is Melbourne, and
that does not appear to be the case there (although in country Vic there
is a defined 1:1 mapping for MABC classified roads), mainly I guess
because most of Melbourne's metro roads still use the old state
(formerly metro) route numbers, which tell you next to nothing about the
type of road you're on -- for example, both the S40 & the S83 (both
major cross-city routes) are in various segments motorways, trunk roads
and primary roads, as appropriate for the physical characteristics of
the road in each segment.

> guess it boils down to the mapping intent, are they highway= tags
> intended for importance, navigation or physical definition (which
> aludes to the 3 different models I talked about in the previous post).

Yes, absolutely.

I think the highway tag, as the tag that causes the biggest visible
difference to a way on the map, probably needs to be a synthesis of all
three factors, but if forced to choose a single one, it should probably
be physical characteristics, since ref= is already giving us importance
and lanes=, maxspeed= & toll= providing the key metrics for navigation.

> I am constantly annoyed by low quality maps which are useless for
> navigational purposes because you can never easily determine the
> routes you are following because they are not consistently labelled a
> seperate colour.

Isn't that a rendering problem, though? Surely better solved by
rendering a route number shield close to each side of an intersection at
which a given route changes roads.

> > There are dozens of examples of where this would inappropriate,
> > including the above. But also think about the A14: Whilst I personally
> > believe Marion Road is correctly tagged as primary, I can see how some
> > might consider it trunk; but Holbrooks Road & East Avenue (also part
> > of A14) -- surely not.
> 
> Again, nothing wrong with your point, but if you follow the thinking
> then any A route can be dropped from trunk and any other route can be
> upped to trunk and it suddenly becomes hard for people to follow the
> map.

Only if they're particularly trying to follow the Axy, not if they're
just trying to find the best way to get from point A to point B.

> > I agree in principle with your proposed Eastern border. However,
> > that's not how most of the western half of the hills have been
> > tagged. I'd like to hear input from Kim (adhoc) before committing on
> > this, since he has done most of the mapping in that area and probably
> > knows it better than either of us. In particular, I'd suspect that
> > whilst Mount Barker and Willunga should probably both be classed as
> > metro areas, that might not be appropriate for the (predominantly
> > country) roads that connect them to each other.
> 
> Yeah, that border was a rough draw of the map to get a starting refence
> point. I tried to make it far enough out to be obvious and of course
> the who area down to Mount Barker sticks out like a sore thumb pushing
> the whole boundary out :)

Yeah, not much we can do about that unfortunately, unless perhaps we
consider Mt Barker as a little island of "urban" and the greater hills
districts as a sea of "not urban". Again, I'd like to hear the
perspective of someone who lives up that way.

> Again we could borrow from our delightful Transport SA and use this as
> a more formal definition: (Full Extend metropolitan area map)
> 
> http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/transport_network/facts_figures/mantained_roads.asp
> 
> Recognizing that at the fringe/crossing those borders only the "B"
> roads should be primaries.
> 
> But then this pushes even futher out than my previous definition so
> maybe it's not so crash hot an idea :)

Agreed. I don't think incorporating the entire Barossa Valley into
Adelaide metro makes much sense. I'm also a little puzzled as to why on
that map Mount Compass (which isn't East of Adelaide at all) is classed
as "Eastern", but Murray Bridge (much further East) isn't...

> > > 3) Primary Roads in City:
> > > 
> > > There are about 5 "B" Roads inside the definition of the city area,
> > > otherwise there's a whole bunch of roads in the city itself which
> > > server the cross-city tasks the road definition suggests these
> > > should be. However I think there are currently way too many roads
> > > in Adelaide marked as primary which AREN'T serving significant
> > > cross-suburb purposes (Prospect Road is one that immediately comes
> > > to mind). I would
> > 
> > I've never seen a B road signposted in metro Adelaide (although there
> > are plenty outside of the metro area) -- where are they?
> 
> B10, B19, B31 and B23 are all immediately in any definition of the Metro
> area. Without my definition above we also have to include B33 and B34
> meaning I can't count ;)

...and presumably that I'm blind ;)
 
> > Here's a start for the primary roads:
> 
> my comments: 
<...>
> > * A22 (Churchill Rd/Cavan Rd)
> 
> I'd almost suggest that if this wasn't a trunk it'd would be primary
> for Cavan Road and secondary for the rest, it's just not that important
> a road.

No objection here.

> > * Prospect Road (although the bit that's been turned into a circus
> > should probably be tertiary, as you've alluded to above)
> 
> Disagree on this one, it serves only the few suburbs along it getting
> to the city. It's 1-lane each way for most of it's length.

On reflection, you're right. Better to be tertiary for the dodgy part
and secondary for the rest.

> > * Regency Road
> 
> Definitely, and Mullers of Course :)

Yep. That makes sense.

> > * All those roads currently marked as primary within the CBD and North
> > Adelaide (postcode areas 5000 & 5006)
> 
> Not sure South Terrace, Hutt Street or Morphett Street qualify for
> this, they're all really stub ends of roads from only one side of the
> city like Pirie and Rundle.

Morphett Street is a through route - it feeds one of the only three
bridges across the Torrens between CBD & North Adelaide. Morphett
St/Montefiore Rd/Jeffcott St could also be viewed as a logical extension
of Torrens Road.

Hutt St feeds George St, which admittedly is only useful if you live in
that part of the inner South, so perhaps you're right on that one.

South Tce is not what it used to be. Didn't realise it was still marked
primary. I agree secondary would be better.

On the flip side, 3 of the 4 squares in the CBD are tagged primary, but
Hindmarsh Square is tagged tertiary. Shouldn't it be upgraded at least
to secondary?

> > * Those parts of Fullarton Road not marked as trunk
> 
> The bits that are either 1 lane each way or crappy 2 lane each way all
> on one carriageway? If we're going to consider quality of road into
> things (which you are imply by some of your definitions, this I think
> these are up for queston).

If you're talking about the Southern end of Fullarton Road, I'd argue
that it feeds Old Belair Road. If you mean the Northern end, I'll defer
to your judgement, as I haven't been down it for years (for good
reason :).

> > * Magill Road
> 
> Yup, as long as we continue it up into the hills to recognise it's a
> significant through road (Old Nortin Summit Road is now the preferred
> through route by road design).

Bizarre -- it used to be the opposite. But agreed.

> > * Glynburn Road
> 
> Lived on this road for 10 years and I can tell you it's not worthy.
> Traffic levels are really quite low and it's more of a local access
> road. It definitley peters off into nothing as you head south of Magill
> road too.

Okay, demote to secondary then.

> > * Walkleys Road/Sudholz Road/Darley Road
> 
> Definitely, but how far down? Newton Road? St Bernards Road? Penfolds?
> This one is tricky because it again peters off at the southern end but
> the northern end is definitley important in a cross-city linking kind
> of way. I'd consider extending it all the way to Greenhill Road
> (doglegging into Hallett Road) merely because of the navigational
> factor.

Better map the southern end of it then :)

> > * Sturt Road
> 
> Including Shepherds hill road all the way to blackwood round about.
> (Then we face an interesting issue re Upper Sturt Road forming a well
> used access path to southern suburbs from Crafers? primary?)

Well used, yes. But I don't think primary. Although, this will depend on
whether we end up calling that part of the hills metro or not.

> > * Flaxmill/Wheatsheaf Roads
> 
> Why? Sure it's a nice big road in parts, but it only links a few
> suburbs. It's not that busy a road. It's only a level 8 road from
> Transport SA's Point of View.

Links A15 with Panalatinga Rd - much quicker/easier driving than Beach
Rd/Doctors Rd.

> > * Beach Road (Noarlunga) between A15 and A13
> 
> Definitely, a lesser road than the previous physically, but heavier
> traffic and more important (if the link from bottom of Panatalinga to
> Beach ever gets built I think the whole thing should be primary)

Which is why I'd suggest that in this case they both be primary.

> > * Seaford Road (between A15 and A13)
> 
> no, Griffiths Drive is the more important one in the region now,
> linking right through to the A13 (good shortcut when the queue at
> Main South Road corner is too long ;)

Okay, point taken. I would have argued this one in days gone by, but now
that Seaford Road has a roundabout too, I'll just agree.

> > * Birdge Road (Pooraka)
> 
> This one had me thinking, I used to drive along it a lot and the
> traffic levels are suprisingly low at the top end.
> i think the section form Kings/McIntyre to Grand Junction is heavily
> enough used to warrant primary, I'm still in 2 minds about the northern
> section, it's almost just a small service road for those few suburbs.

Agreed, since I've almost never used the Northern end of it, I'll defer
to your judgement.

> > * Waterloo Corner Road (Salisbury)
> 
> Definitely, not a high quality road, but it's linking of Port Wakefield
> road to Salisbury and Golden Grove areas is significant. Of course that
> poses the issue of Park Terrace, I've marked it primary now because it
> forms the waterloo corner-grove way link.

Park Tce as a primary is okay, for same reasons you gave for Beach Road
above.

> > * Kings Road (Salisbury)
> 
> This is another of those A Road trunk edge cases I know :) 
> Again if it's not a trunk it's definitely a primary.

Agreed.

> > * Phillip Hwy (Elizabeth)
> 
> This one I've been arguing with myself about, it's a good shortcut from
> Salisbury Highway to Main North Road if you like to save a kilometre or
> so, but it's really a feeder road into Elizbaeth one way and a minor
> feeder of commuter traffic into Salisbury Highway. It may just scrape
> over the line I guess, and it does look nice there as a primary :)

I'd feel a little uneasy tagging a metro road with "Highway" in its name
as anything less than primary. Even the Chandler Hwy in Kew, Vic (to the
best of my knowledge, the shortest "Highway" in Australia) is primary,
although admittedly it carries part of route S21, and has its own
freeway exit.

> > * Old Mt Barker Rd/Old Princes Hwy (hills)
> 
> I balk at this one, it's neither a commuter route nor more than a
> linker of adjacent towns who are too close to use freeway exits.
> The B route system up there (B33 out through Stirling, B34 through
> Hahndorf and Woodside and the B37 through Mount Barker) give us
> primaries along all the main heavy routes anyway. The M1 just eats up
> all the other heavy duty jobs.

Having looked again at the map, I'd agree, only tag the B ref'd segments
as primary. May be moot anyway, if we decide that's not metro.

> > * Goodwood Road/Fiveash Drive/Ayliffes Road
> 
> This one had me in 2 minds but I eventually came down in my mind a
> couple of days ago to agree on this one. Mainly due to it's heavy
> commuter (arterial I guess :) usage.

Northbound signage at corner Main South & Ayliffes reads "City via South
Road" one way and "City via Goodwood Road" the other (or something like
that), which seems to give almost equal priority to them (although I
wouldn't suggest making Ayliffes a trunk), if that makes the decision
any easier for you..

> > * Unley Road/Belair Road
> 
> This is a funny one, all the traffic goes up
> unley/belair/blythewood/old belair/main road but I'd suggest from a
> mapping point of view for a 'through route' for people/systems to
> follow to use straight up belair road. And to extend this route quite a
> distance south, where to stop is tricky because I've always been of the
> opinion this should have been an A or B route all the way to Goolwa,
> but that's just me. If we follow the rural pattern outside of the city
> then at some point this route needs to drop to 'secondary' since that's
> what it is in the rural section. So we need to decide where to stop :)
> I'd suggest at least to Black Road.

I'd probably continue it as a primary to the corner of Upper Sturt Road,
then have Main Road as a secondary, but you're right, it's a borderline
one that could go either way from thereon in.

By the way, is Belair Road/Main Road still signposted as route T57?

> > The list probably needs a whole bunch more entries in the hills and a
> > few more in the Northern suburbs and maybe a couple more in the deep
> > South too -- others who know the local roads better than me can add
> > these. Similarly, I've left out the Golden Grove area altogether since
> > looking at the map it seems to have changed immensely since I was last
> > there (some years ago), so someone else will need to make a start on
> > that area.
> 
> I wasn't going to make a long list but I got carried away, here's my
> additions:
> 
> * Heaslip road and Angle Vale road from Heaslip Road to Galwer
> 
> A *VERY* heavy truck route and of course the target for replacement by
> the northern expressway, but for the moment it's a very signficant 2nd
> entry to the city from Gawler and Beyond.

Agreed. Maybe even the other side of Angle Vale Road too, as a link
between Main North & Port Wakefiled Roads (although that's debatable).

> * Grove Way - whole length
> 
> This is a very heavily trafficed road linking Salisbury and Elizabeth
> to the Golden Grove & Modubry areas (and via Hancock Road & Lower
> N.E.Rd suburbs south of the Torrens)
> 
> * Golden Grove Road to Old Golden Grove and possibly the road up
> through snake gully to One Tree Hill and Gawler
> 
> The start of this one is easy, it's a major through road/arterial, how
> far it follows along this path as primary I'm not sure since it crosses
> into the almost rural area but Transport SA have not chosen to put any B
> roads in the area..
> 
> * Black Top Road, this road links up to the above road higher up, it
> links One Tree Hill and Para Wirra Consevation park to the city. If we
> extend the above far enough up to intersect with this I think this
> should be primary, if not it should probably fall back to secondary.
> So this is a debatable one.

I'll take your word for it (I'm not strong on that part of town).

> * Montague road - Modbury to Dry Creek, this is the next significant
> east-west through road north of Grand Junction Road, mostly duplicated,
> higher speed in sections.

Agreed.

> * Majors Road/Black Road - Sheidow Park to Corromandel Valley
> 
> I think this is the 'next' east-west road to define. It's fairly low
> quality but it's cross-city-ness makes it more relevant.

True, but only just.

> * Flagstaff Hill Road & continues
> 
> major north-south arterial in the area, perhaps continue it all the way
> up Chandlers Hill Road to Clarendon? And beyond? (then we get into
> rural teritory again) It has really replaced Chandlers Hill road from
> South road (listed below) as the main route into this area, carrying
> twice the traffic.

Is this Happy Valley Drive? If so, it never struck me as being that
major. Mind you, it's some time since I was last down that way, so
perhaps you're right.

> * Panatalinga Road - High Quality, Serving many suburbs, links directly
> across A13 to the M2, and may eventually link through to beach road..
> Of course it's not really cross suburb and could be grouped with The
> Grove Way whichever way we decide...

Agreed.

> * Kenihans Road/Chandlers Hill Road
> 
> This is a possible inclusion, forming another east-west link between
> black road and sheriffs road, and looking at the Transport SA traffic
> levels in the area this combination totally blitzes the chandlers hill
> road to main south road path for traffic levels. not sure if it quite
> qualifies for primary though.

Not quite sure either, but if we do, then we should make the whole of
Chandlers Hill Road primary.

> (BTW just to make it clear I know all of Adelaide pretty well, 6 years
> of Taxi driving finishing 10 years ago and a healthy interest in
> driving around adelaide just to look at the roads means I've seen a LOT
> of it, just so you don't think Im totally making this up :)

Good. Likewise. Some years ago I used to be a travelling salesman, so
chances are we have driven many of the same roads, albeit for different
purposes. So between the two of us we should be able to come up with a
reasonably good model here (although I'd still like some help from
somebody with a more intimate knowledge of the hills).

> > Note that I have deliberately left out the following (some of which
> > are currently or have previously been tagged as primary) roads, as
> > whilst they are important roads, they are not "cross-city" or
> > "arterial":
> 
> Yup, I like this list, well most of them, my comments are in there:
<...>
> > * Oaklands Road/Daws Road/Springbank Road
> 
> This is a tricky one, including blythewood road it forms the next
> significant east-west route down from Cross Road... another borderline
> case..

Yes, borderline, but I'd say just the secondary side of the border ;)

> > * Seacombe Road
> 
> Oh definitely, another one I've alraedy considered dropping. And I used
> to live just off that one many years ago too, and it hasn't improve
> much in *cough* years

They put a roundabout in, that's about it.

> > * Kensington Road
> 
> This one could prove interesting, there are 2 signs on Portrush Road
> showing the A6 going along here towards the city. However I'm still
> waiting to see at least a couple more signs between West Terrace and
> Portrush Road before I accept the A6 goes all the way through...
> If we assume it doesn't for the moment, then yes it's a secondary :)

Well spotted. I agree that waiting makes sense. Especially since from
the Western end the A6 seems to disappear when it hits the city.

> > * Nottage Terrace (Medindie)
> > * Osmond Terrace (Norwood)
> 
> A tricky one, since Nottage forms the link from the A10 to the western
> side of the A21 and carries nearly 30k vpd which is more than quite a
> number of other roads around the city...  Certainly the whole of the
> road BEYOND there is secondary territory.

I'd suggest that the Nottage beyond the A10 would only be tertiary. You
may be right about between A10 and A1, but it seems a little irksome to
have such a short segment of road tagged primary. I assume you're okay
with demoting Osmond Tce.

> Now my own 'drop' additions:
> 
> * Chandlers Hill Road from main South Road to Kenihans Road (See Above)

Not sure. I should probably drive it again (I don't recall it being so
minor).

> If it's a divided road with >= 2 lanes it's secondary if it's not
> anything else. That covers just about every case of current primary
> that should be secondary you listed above. :)

Sounds like a good rule. I can't think of any exceptions off the top of
my head. And this seems to coincide nicely with the current "major/minor
through route within a local area" on the Aust. Roads Tagging wiki page,
for most examples I can think of in Adelaide.

> And I guess at some point it gets redundant to list them in 2 places
> anyway :) (on the map and on the wiki :) I think trunk + primary are
> important enough to make it clear to everyone on there. 

Agreed.

> I might start a South Australia page on the wiki to start documenting
> all the ones we agree on at least (and flag the others as under
> debate - with a note to say don't change any debatable ones - yet :)
> I think this will help someone like me, who recently found OSM and got
> enthusiastic and could see obvious inconsistencies, but couldn't
> necissarily work out the right way to go... and you know what happened
> in a couple of cases ;)

Sounds good. Might be a good reason for me to finally bother to setup a
wiki account too :). But can I suggest you make it an Adelaide page
(rather than SA), since we're discussing metro areas here? (correct me
if I am wrong, but I don't think any of us have a problem with the
existing Aust. Roads tagging guidelines for non-urban roads).

Cheers,


Jack.