[Talk-us] [Talk-us-newyork] Highway classification guidelines for New York State
brad
bradhaack at fastmail.com
Sat Sep 18 02:52:56 UTC 2021
On 9/16/21 1:21 PM, Jmapb wrote:
>
> Highway=unclassified is one of the several annoying OSM tags that does
> not mean what the words mean. It doesn't mean that the classification
> is nebulous, or that a decision is pending. It's for roads that
> connect locations but are a tier on the road network below tertiary.
> And yes, the unfortunate name "unclassified," I'm told, is derived
> from standard highway nomenclature in the UK and so made it's way into
> OSM.
>
> Likewise highway=residential is also one of the annoying OSM tags that
> isn't to be tagged or interpreted in a literal fashion. It's used for
> local public roads that don't serve the purpose of linking locations.
> It doesn't matter whether these roads are alongside dwellings,
> factories, offices, shops, or wilderness.
>
> These are the tagging standards I've come to believe in. Carto and
> other renderers may choose to draw unclassified and residential in the
> same width and color, and routers may choose not to favor one over the
> other, but these choices don't change the definitions.
>
> I can't say exactly whose word I took on these definitions, or when or
> where -- probably some combination of the wiki, the mailing list,
> conversations, changeset comments, and other channels -- but I've been
> under the naive impression that this was a settled question. It seems
> it's not! If the nature of the low end of the highway classification
> hierarchy is indeed up for debate, I'd say the NY proposal's
> recommendations for anything below tertiary might be better replaced
> with a simple text that recommends following standard tagging
> practices and local conventions.
>
> Jason
>
>
The wiki seems pretty clear, sensible, and literal about residential:
"Roads which serve as an access to housing, without function of
connecting settlements. Often lined with housing."
More information about the Talk-us
mailing list