[OSM-talk] [OSM-dev] Developers requested to help provide "completeness" tools

[Inge Wallin]

On Monday 12 May 2008 20:09:41 David Earl wrote:
> On 12/05/2008 18:06, Inge Wallin wrote:
> > On Monday 12 May 2008 18:06:59 Chris Morley wrote:
> >> Starting with a single level of completeness makes sense, but I think it
> >> should be public roads, named where feasible.
> >
> > I have a different view.  I think we should have a leveled scheme from
> > the beginning.  I suggest the following:
> >
> > Level 1: All the highways (using OSM lingo) usable by cars within an area
> > are mapped
> > Level 2: All highways are mapped and named
> > Level 3: All highways down to cycleways are mapped (and named if
> > feasible).
>
> That's a very car-centric view of the world. Why "down" to cycleways?
> Who are you to say something usable by a car is more important than
> something usable by a bike?

Yes that is car-centric.  But more importantly, it is size-centric. The larger 
roads are mapped first, and then the smaller ones. That's what I mean when I 
say "down to", i.e. going from the bigger sizes down to the smaller ones.

And I think you agree that larger roads are more important (in general) and 
also more prominent in the landscape, even if a lot of people use cycle roads 
more. And just to make things clearI use my bike almost all of the time when 
I map.

	-Inge