[Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?
baloo at ursamundi.org
Fri Dec 30 22:20:31 UTC 2016
On Fri, Dec 30, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Volker Schmidt <voschix at gmail.com> wrote:
> As a general rule, should highway=trunk be used for routes on the National
>> Highway System? Considering that those routes are generally more backbone
>> routes, more important than a lot of primary routes, it makes sense that
>> they should be tagged with trunk.
> The formulation on the wiki page
> does not make any reference to the National Highway System, at least so
> Looking at the NHS Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> National_Highway_System_(United_States) I would say the answer to the
> question should probably be "no", as the NHS roads are defined on certain
> importance criteria and this assignment seems to be orthogonal to the road
> classification system, whereas the OSM tagging is based on the road
> attributes, layout and traffic usage classes.
I would generally be inclined to say that most members of the NHS would
already be a part of the US highway system at a minimum, so I would be
surprised if these aren't already tagged primary, trunk or motorway
depending on it's observable attributes anyway. Looking through the
wikipedia page, it appears some member ways might be considered
unclassified or tertiary based on observable ground truth and the highest
level network the way might be signed as being part of (none, county,
state, national, interstate) would be considered a trunk if NHS were
minimum trunk. I'd tend to lean against this being a good idea, since we
already have trunk for limited access dual carriageway/controlled access
single carriageway; and motorway for completely controlled access and dual
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us