[Talk-us] highway=trunk for NHS routes?

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 2 10:26:16 UTC 2017


On Sun, Jan 1, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>
wrote:

> On 12/31/16 4:19 PM, Kerry Irons wrote:
> >
> > Not to cloud this discussion, but be aware that at least some states
> > refer to “county trunk” roads at the county level.  Near as I can tell
> > that simply means “major” vs. “minor” roads at the county level
> > without rigid criteria to define them.  Looking at the US NHS roads
> > for my area, it seems that the choices to include a given highway in
> > the NHS is fairly arbitrary.  There may have been traffic counts
> > included in the decision but that would have been only part of the
> > criteria – highways in low-population areas are part of the NHS while
> > much heavier traffic highways in more densely populated areas are not.
> >
> highway=trunk is problematic in the US in many ways. it has been used
> rather
> inconsistently over the years, but right now, it doesn't seem too bad.
>
> changing the sense of highway=trunk to represent the NHS classification is
> likely to fail miserably. not everyone will get the message. some of those
> folks will get involved in edit wars. it will likely just make a hash of
> things.
>

Not to mention that someone not that long ago unilaterally retagged the
entire NHS as trunk and we're *still* undoing the damage that caused years
later, particularly in the flyover states that don't get much attention.
For the sanity of literally everyone involved, I'll not revisit that in
depth, but safe to say at least five OSM mailing lists and the DWG were
extensively involved.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20170102/0ac797ad/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list