[OSM-talk-ie] Rewording tertiary and unclassified in Wiki

[Thomas Bibby]

I can see the disadvantages of this perspective, but thought I woud
put it out anyway.

Out in rural areas, some OSi maps have a thick yellow line and a thin
yellow line for tertiary roads.  The differentiation is made according
to road width (can't remember the threshold width).

I find this really useful when going out cycling -- roughly speaking
the thick yellow lines are roads wide enough for two cars to pass at
speed, i.e. to R-Road standards.  The thin yellow lines are narrower
and hence the average speed of cars is much lower -- much more
preferable for cycling.

This difference is also useful when driving a car in rural areas: the
thin yellow lines are to be avoided in a car even if it results in a
shorter distance to a destination, as it is really unsafe to exceed 50
km/h on those roads, whereas 80km/h is feasible on many of the thick
yellow lines.

Of course this could easily be more appropriately acheived in OSM with
a width tag.  I'm not sure what logic is used in the Local
Primary/Secondary/Tertiary classifications.

So the tentative classification I am suggesting is:
1. Wide enough for two cars to pass at speed (rural) / an important
link road (urban) = tertiary
2. Not wide enough for 2 cars to pass at speed (rural) / not important
for routing (urban) = unclassified

As I said, I can see the disadvantages of this idea (road
classification should not be made solely on width when there is a
width tag for this purpose), but on the plus side, this proposed
classification is easy to remember and is useful for various types of
road users.

As a final thought, I know I am very guilty of sloppy
tertiary/unclassfied categorisations in East County Limerick.

Thomas.