[OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/6 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>:
> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant
>>> to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy.
>>
>> -1. I would contradict this for streets.
>
> I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of
> importance - yes - but once we drop below that infrastructure, all the
> remaining ways should be considered as equal, and personally *I* include
> tertiary in that. So residential, service and probably even track as well as
> unclassified are of equal importance when it comes to the main function of
> moving vehicles from a to c.

lat's put it like this: it depends where and why you want to go to
some place. For a farmer, lumberjack or forest police a track is
important, no doubt. I intended importance for the street grid. IMHO
Of course a tertiary road is more important than un unclassified or
residential one. Otherwise: what would be the distinction? Generally
you could find out the importance by evaluating (or estimating) the
relative traffic frequency. Relative means: relative to the area /
surroundings.

> The argument about 'is way x better than way y'
> where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made,
> and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified
> would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ?

yes, I agree that there is no consensus about the distinction of
importance between unclassified and residential, and maybe not even
has to be. But this is the first time I learn that there is also doubt
about the distinction of tertiary from residential and unclassified.
The latter 2 IMHO are clearly less important than tertiary.

cheers,
Martin