[OSM-talk-ie] L-roads terrible signing or the lack thereof.

Dermot McNally dermotm at gmail.com
Sat Nov 15 19:43:04 GMT 2008


2008/11/14 Martin List-Petersen <martin at list-petersen.dk>:

> robin grindrod wrote:

>> I think these roads should marked as tertiary even if you don't know
>> the reference number.
>
> Well, the issue is to determine wether they are L-roads or not. As you
> know yourself most likely, L-roads can be anything from two lane roads
> as wide as national or secondary roads to little dinky one lane roads
> with grass growing in the middle, but these roads could be as well not
> be L-roads, but simply residential roads. The unclassified road (instead
> of "no preset") kindda covers the situation, where it's unkown.

I'll echo Robin's suggestion that tertiaries should not be downgraded
just because of the lack of L-road signs. As far as I'm aware, _all_
roads not having a higher classification are automatically L-roads,
whether so signed or not, so by making the presence of a sign your
criterion for tertiary tagging will have very negative effects. It
could elevate the importance of really insignificant roads which
happen to be in a well-signed county, while consigning many of the
country's important back road to obscurity on the map.

Somebody on either IRC or the main talk list gave his definition of
tertiary roads, which I liked, and which is a good description of how
I use them:

Tertiary roads are more "routy" than unclassified roads.

Sums it up for me.

Dermot

-- 
--------------------------------------
Iren sind menschlich




More information about the Talk-ie mailing list