[Talk-lt] secondary/tertiary in proposed definitions at WikiProject Lithuania

[Mateusz Konieczny]

7 cze 2022, 17:28 od albertas.agejevas at gmail.com:

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 3:20 PM Mateusz Konieczny via Talk-lt <> talk-lt at openstreetmap.org> > wrote:
>
>> It is also, obviously, causing cartographic issues only when secondary and
>> tertiary roads are shown differently.
>>
>
> One man's cartographic issues is another man's useful information. As a rule, renderers don't regard the surface when rendering roads, but for me as a road user, for example, planning bike journeys, the visual distinction is very useful. However, in principle I could agree. Our practice is probably an instance of tagging for a renderer, and the same road alternating between secondary and tertiary is not ideal.
>
> As for the official road category not matching the actual importance, do you have any concrete examples in mind?
>
> Albertas
>
For example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/54.8611/23.0654
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/114389023#map=15/55.6933/24.1503
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/55.7962/24.2207
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/154294096#map=15/56.1228/21.3064

this is much weaker claim, but it was at least a bit suprising to me

in my experience highway=secondary is rather used for connection between
bigger settlements, with highway=tertiary for connection between smaller ones

But maybe in this case Poland is on the other side and should use highway=secondary
more often? Or has different urban structure?

Definitely disjointed highway=secondary roads are more unusual and surprising part.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-lt/attachments/20220607/4e99f623/attachment.htm>