We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the classification, but in the next town it would probably not work.
Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 8 aug. 2019 om 13:43 schreef Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 12:18, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now >> tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now >> tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the >> village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are >> separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes, >> stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways. >> > > Sounds sensible to me. Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery, > trees, etc. influence > me. If the main function is getting through the village then it's a > through road even though > it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have > pavements. There are > a few houses in my area where the front door opens straight onto the road, > which is an > officially-designated tertiary. > > >> If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would >> use quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not. >> > > "Quaternary" is a term used by me purely to make clear that "unclassified" > arose from the UK > through-road hierarchy of A roads (primary), B roads (secondary), C roads > (tertiary) and > U-for-unclassified roads (quaternary). Unclassified doesn't mean, as the > guy who recently > edited the wiki thought, uncategorized. It's not for roads you don't know > the purpose of, it's the > fourth level in the hierarchy with an unfortunate choice of name. If you > don't know what > the road is for and can't decide, then use highway=road. > > So I wouldn't recommend using "quaternary." I would be very happy if OSM > switched to > using quaternary instead of unclassified but, for various reasons, that is > very unlikely to > happen. Ill-conceived values like "unclassified" which are historical > accidents are one > of the reasons this list exists. Had this list existed back then we'd > probably still be > arguing whether to call the fourth level "unclassified" or "quaternary." :) > > -- > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
