[Talk-us] Another road classification disagreement (this time with HFCS in Kansas)

[Paul Johnson]

On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 11:49 AM, <richiekennedy56 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am the editor in question.
>
> The discussion appears to assume that roadway design conveys type. I do
> not necessarily agree.
>
> However, I can see where some roads with a high HFCS classification may
> warrant a class downgrade. US 24 in Central Kansas obviously connects
> mainly smaller towns, whereas US 54 (which I had just re-classed as trunk a
> few days ago) connects larger towns and cities.
>
> I would suggest the following guidance for rural HFCS:
>
> Interstate: Motorway
> Other Freeway and Expressway: Motorway/Trunk
> Principal Arterial: Trunk/Primary [1]
> Minor Arterial: Primary
> Major Collector: Secondary/Tertiary
> Minor Collector: Tertiary
>

I'm mostly with you on this, except, for the four lower classes, which
generally speaking the following observations with tagging have been true:

Interstate/Freeway (only): Motorway
Expressway (only): Trunk

If not one of the above, or prevailing overriding circumstances (like
additional capacity or lack of capacity) don't warrant a step up or down,
then:

US highway: Primary (which I might rank down in very rare circumstances)
State highway: Secondary (which I might rank down if it's part of a
supplemental state network or up if it forms a major (5+ lane) arterial.
County highway: Tertiary (which I might rank up to secondary or primary if
it's 3-5 or 5+ lane (such as, say, the section line roads in Tulsa) or down
if it doesn't have visible pavement markings or pavement)

Generally speaking, that's the TL;DR of
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20150920/d7caf488/attachment.html>