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

Martin List-Petersen martin at list-petersen.dk
Sun Nov 16 17:11:28 GMT 2008

Dermot McNally wrote:
> 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.


I can live with the definition that all unclassified roads are tertiary 
roads. In Ireland tertiary roads aren't more "routy", but they also can 
be single lane roads :)

Should we add the requirement, that a tertiary road brings you from one 
place to another (so it's no dead end) ?


Communication is the beginning of understanding
   -- AT&T

More information about the Talk-ie mailing list