[Talk-us] United States Roadway Classification Guidelines

[Kevin Atkinson]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Alex Mauer wrote:

> On 07/27/2010 08:00 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>> We have those tags: lanes=*, width=*, etc. But there's no "on the
>> ground" definition of importance, and there's nothing wrong with
>> tagging correctly for the renderers. Classification has been
>> subjective from the beginning in the US, because there is no
>> consistent government-assigned classification.
>
> I’ve found that, when available, the HFCS (Highway Functional
> Classification System—not to be confused with High Fructose Corn Syrup)
> is quite consistent.  Unfortunately, it’s not available for every area.
> I am of the opinion that it should be followed when possible.  The
> system described at the wiki page under discussion seems like a good way
> to do it where HFCS is not available (with the addition of /trunk/ as
> described below, though trunks are not always limited-access.)

In my view this can only be used as another data point when it is 
available.  I have found that the HFCS are not entirely consistent.  It 
may also be a bit bias towards what the state and local governments want 
to get funding for, and not necessary how locals view the road.  For 
example I discovered the map 
(http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=200503241423471) after I 
tagged most of Salt Lake City.  My data mostly agrees with whats there but 
there are some parts that don't make sense.  For example they have 1300 So 
as a Minor Arterial for it's entire length.  But I refuse to believe it 
because from 1300 E to Foothill there are stop signs every other block. No 
arterial in a city should have that many stop signs.  Also they have part 
of State road 282 (through the University of Utah) as a Minor Arterial and 
part as a Collector, this makes no sense.  The road does not suddenly 
change characteristics or function as indicated on the map.

Also there is the question of copyright.  This are produces by the state 
government not the federal one.  So technical you will need to get 
clearance before you can use it in OSM.  I don't necessary agree with that 
view, however.