[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