[OSM-talk] [RFC] highway=unclassified currently is too ambiguous, so here's my proposal to fix it.

[Christiaan Welvaart]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Richard Mann wrote:

> I'd define a "rural" as a road which is (usually) maintained by a public
> body, and open to public access, but where only partial provision is made
> for vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass (be that lower-grade
> shoulders, Australian-style or occasional formal or informal widenings,
> UK-style).

That's still too much of a physical definition (:
How about:

highway=rural: a road not in a built-up area that provides direct access 
to buildings (e.g. farms), similar in function to a residential road in 
built-up areas. Such roads often have a smaller width than connecting 
roads like unclassified and tertiary ways, and are not supposed to be used 
for passing through the rural area.

A possible additional characteristic: no bicycle facilities are present on 
such roads. Just like residential roads they are not very suitable for 
cyclists passing through: for residential roads, many cyclists passing 
them could cause the people living there to complain, while cycling on 
rural roads is relatively unsafe/uncomfortable because of the road width 
and large vehicles using the road (combined with the lack of bicycle lanes 
or ways).

A problem could be that rural areas may have a whole network of roads that 
all look the same. I suppose they can all be tagged highway=rural in such 
a case(?), but does that match the above description?


     Christiaan