[Talk-GB] Ground truth v legal truth

Tom Hughes tom at compton.nu
Fri Jul 19 14:06:03 UTC 2019

On 19/07/2019 14:17, David Woolley wrote:
> On 19/07/2019 13:37, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>> I would say the logical consequence of that argument is that no road 
>>> should be mapped as tertiary, as, unless taken from OS, it is a 
>>> subjective judgement and can't be consistently verified.
>> That doesn't follow - in the UK we have always (with very rare
>> exceptions like Oxford High Street) mapped secondary, primary and
>> trunk to the official status of the road.
> You seem to be rejecting the original proposal.  I was analysing the 
> case where the original proposal is accepted, and therefore the official 
> status must be ignored if it is not signposted.

Well I'm not entirely sure what the true status is since the road
hasn't been identified and OS OpenData seems to be being used as
the source of truth which wouldn't be my first choice.

Philip seemed to be saying that this was genuinely a white
signed A road (or at least that OpenData says it is) and hence
that it is a primary although he apparently prefers it to be

You then followed up by saying that the logical consequence
of it being a primary (which I was assuming was correct) was
that nothing was tertiary, which didn't seem  to make much
sense to me

Perhaps if the road was identified it would be a more productive


Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list