[talk-au] Princes Highway (Relation 538443)
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 7 06:53:59 BST 2011
On 7 September 2011 15:49, Ian Sergeant <inas66 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I write " I just have something against this relation, because it is
> arbitrary and confusing"
> and you write "So your entire argument is that we should delete the whole
> route because it isn't contiguous?"
Most routes are arbitrary and confusing, you only have to look at
rural/regional highways going through medium sized towns, this goes
doubly so for tourism routes and is again a very good reason for
having routes, rather than removing them.
> If that was my entire argument, I'd just say that, but instead of that I
> said that it is arbitrary and confusing. Arbitrary because there is no
> touchstone of verifiability, it is just each person opinion. Confusing,
The problem usually stems from differences at how the way is gazetted
to how the way is actually built, and for what ever reason the
gazetted version then isn't updated is another argument altogether.
> because it is both a road name and a route, and it is impossible for them
> both to align. If this gets into a satnav which recommends you continue on
> the Princes Highway route, while actually turning off the Princes Highway
> road - what a mess. Why do we seek this?
Way names are supposed to have preference, and if you are talking
about local routes that differ in name this shouldn't be an issue and
is one of the reasons to put highway names into routes.
More information about the Talk-au