[Talk-us] Tagging a super-two highway (trunk or motorway?)
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Thu Jul 25 23:42:34 UTC 2013
[catching up; sorry if this is really redundant]
Chris Lawrence <lordsutch at gmail.com> writes:
> A true "super two" freeway, with no at-grade intersections whatsoever,
> would be properly classified as a motorway under global OSM tagging
> conventions. These may not be particularly common in the U.S.
> (although they exist), but they are common enough around the world to
> be consistent.
> Sorta-I-93 through Franconia Notch would not technically be a super
> two due to the median barrier; it's two separate one-lane motorway
> carriageways under OSM tagging conventions.
A motorway has to be (IMHO, and from reading the wiki over the years)
all of the following:
multiple lanes in each direction
no at-grade intersections
Any significant or other than just-once-really-this-shouldn't deviation
disqualifies it as motorway and then the right classification is trunk
which means something that's sort of like a motorway except that it's
deficient in one or more of the criteria. There's a fair bit of route 2
in mass that is one lane each way, divided, and controlled access. But
that's trunk, not motorway, because motorways have at least two lanes in
I don't understand why people want to call things that don't meet the
motorway definition a motorway. Trunk exists to be "almost a motorway
but not quite". Reading "super two" on wikipedia, that's very clearly
trunk, because super two is not typically divided and is not typically
two lanes in each direction.
If I-93 is really 1 lane in each direction, it should be downgraded to
trunk. Except that we sort of have a norm that if it is signed
Interstate, it gets a pass on motorway standards. (I think that's the
wrong thing to do.)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Talk-us