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

[Christiaan Welvaart]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Shaun McDonald wrote:

>
> On 5 Aug 2009, at 20:59, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
>
>> 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).
>> 
>
> Am I right in seeing that you think that residential streets are not for 
> cycling along? Then explain why the majority of the London Cycle Network is 
> along residential streets. Many of the rural roads I've been on are quiet 
> country lanes with little traffic, some of which are part of the National 
> Cycle Network.

So what I wrote about bicycles is not valid - thanks for clearing that up.


     Christiaan