[Talk-us] US Trunk road tagging

[Minh Nguyen]

Vào lúc 07:51 2021-05-05, Mike Thompson đã viết:
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 2:23 AM Minh Nguyen 
> <minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us 
> <mailto:minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     Aside from specific cartographic needs, there's an argument for using
>     route membership as an easy proxy for connectivity. Indeed, one can
>     retag a great many roads this way without ever looking at aerial
>     imagery, which is how Oregonian3 kicked off the latest iteration of
>     this
>     debate.
> 
> Do you know for a fact that this is how Oregonian3 did their 
> reclassification?  It doesn't seem that the reclassifications fit this 
> assumption.  For example, not all US Routes were treated the same.  US 
> 34 from Estes Park to the junction with US 36 in Rocky Mountain National 
> Park was downgraded to secondary, while US 36 in the same area was left 
> as primary.

You're right, I think it was stated somewhere else in the thread that 
they were likely going off of traffic counts. In principle, that isn't 
the worst way to classify roads, but it raises a lot of questions that 
would need to be answered through better documentation than an enigmatic 
changeset comment.

Anyways, I meant more generally that Oregonian3 sparked this discussion 
by mass-retagging roads while only the Standard layer was visible. In 
the past, I've run into other mappers who explicitly did that without 
consulting an external reference, either applying a made-up rule or 
rationalizing the map aesthetically, as in xkcd #1902. Not even the 
broadest interpretation of the on-the-ground rule would support that 
practice. (In one extreme case, I recall a gravel driveway becoming a 
trunk road for aesthetic reasons. I hope we can at least agree on a 
definition of highway=trunk that excludes gravel driveways.)

-- 
minh at nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us