[Talk-us] US highway classification

[Kristian Zoerhoff]

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 06:26 AM, Kristian Zoerhoff wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Toby Murray <toby.murray-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Nathan Mills <nathan-jiAvZWzNa1NeoWH0uzbU5w at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 May 2011 12:09:30 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking the differences between motorways and trunks are minor.
>>>>> Trunks may have intersections, motorways don't.
>>>>
>>>> That's the simple way to state my opinion. It also seemed to be the thrust
>>>> of most of the discussion on the talk page of the wiki page referenced
>>>> previously as closest to consensus (the page itself just references the
>>>> existence of the two camps and leaves it at that).
>>>>
>>>> In short, my position is simply that an end user expects a trunk road to be
>>>> identifiably different than primary or secondary. That's how it's done on
>>>> other maps, so I don't see why that's such a bad thing here.
>>>
>>> I agree with this as well. And I too thought this was a pretty widely
>>> accepted convention.
>>
>> That's one accepted convention, to be sure, but it sometimes ignores
>> the realities of where traffic goes.
>>
>> To give an example: <http://osm.org/go/ZUdwt69>
>
> 59 and 19...which networks?  Those two routes have incomplete refs.

IL state routes. I'll get to them someday, maybe.

>> If we stuck purely to the above
>> convention, 72 would be trunk, and 20 would be primary (at best).  But
>> traffic flow cares more about where the road goes, not what it looks
>> like.
>
> I'd probably consider both 20 and 72 as trunks based on their design
> looking at the NAIP footage.

Maybe. I definitely think IL 72 should be primary further west than it
is today, but I got sidetracked into fixing more bad TIGER alignments.

-- 
Kristian Zoerhoff
kristian.zoerhoff at gmail.com