[Talk-us] US highway classification

Nathan Mills nathan at nwacg.net
Sun May 29 01:37:47 BST 2011


 On Sat, 28 May 2011 17:25:17 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:

>>> No, trunk is to primary as primary is to secondary.
>>
>> Except that it's not.
>
> It is in my criteria, which you're misrepresenting.

 You described your criteria, but did not explain how trunk is more 
 appropriate than primary for a two lane rural highway between two 
 small-to-tiny cities. If you use trunk for that, there is no way to 
 describe (in a way that shows up on the tiles) a road which is not a 
 motorway but is better than the typical rural highway.

> I also upgrade major state-numbered highways from secondary to
> primary. This leaves more breathing room in secondary and tertiary 
> for
> the lesser roads.

 As makes sense if the highway is the most direct non-Interstate, 
 non-trunk route between two regionally important cities. Why would trunk 
 be used for the same thing? That's what I've been trying (apparently 
 rather poorly) to get at.

 Whose route network a given highway is a part of seems to me to be a 
 poor differentiator. A city-maintained motorway is the same as a 
 state-maintained motorway, IMO. As I said before, some element of 
 judgement is necessary in deciding whether a four lane divided highway 
 really deserves trunk or whether a two lane highway really deserves 
 primary. If it's not regionally important and/or is a very short 
 segment, my answer would be no.



More information about the Talk-us mailing list