[Talk-us] Minimum standards for motorways?

[Anthony]

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Nathan Edgars II <neroute2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 12:38 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>> and be reserved for specific categories of motor vehicles.
>>>
>>> This would eliminate a large number of Interstates out west.
>>
>> Maybe it would.  Is that a problem?
>
> Yes, since the average North American motorist wouldn't expect a
> highway to be shown differently based on whether a cyclist can use the
> shoulder.

I wouldn't say permission for a cyclist to use the shoulder
disqualifies a highway from being a motorway.  Permission for a
cyclist to use the roadway would, though.

>>> Usually a freeway is defined to have no cross traffic and no access
>>> from adjacent properties. All Interstates save about five meet this.
>>
>> The tag we are talking about is motorway, not freeway.
>>
> So?

So the definition of "freeway" is irrelevant.

> In the UK highway=trunk is used for the primary route network, not
> trunk highways.

As is the definition of "trunk".