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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/7 Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 1:37 AM, Richard
> Mann<richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

> I've added my thoughts to the discussion page. Replicated below:
>
> Presently IMHO it's an absolute mess. Try reading the whole page
> through once, then see if you can explain to someone what it means. Or
> better yet, get a non-OSM'er to read it and see if they understand.
> Here's another idea: there appears to be several distinct definitions
> of the tag in current use, according to talk and talk-au mailing list
> discussion e.g.
>
>   1. urban roads in industrial areas less important than highway=tertiary
>   2. "something bigger than highway=residential but smaller than
> highway=tertiary"
>   3. rural roads less important than highway=tertiary
>   4. "a road equal to a residential road, but outside residential
> areas"; "a road roughly equal to residential but without people living
> there"
>   5. "the lowest street/road in the interconnecting grid, be it in
> urban or rural areas"
>
> Rather than trying to unify the different usages into one big
> confusing mess, maybe it would be better to separately explain each
> current usage? i.e. "This tag is used if the road is A or B or C or D
> or E". This more closely reflects reality and IMHO will not be any
> harder to read than the current mess. This could also lead the way to
> *eventually* replace each different usage with a tag of its own.

I completely agree with Roy. Be it for the mess created as for the
summary of current use. Let's use this.

cheers,
Martin