Tagging Guidelines for County/Regional Roads
I think the tagging guidelines need to be revised, if we're looking to get output from available tools. There was a mailing list posting mentioning that highway="minor" is deprecated, so we probably shouldn't be using it.
Plus, given how current rendering tools are outputting, I believe minor is equaivalent to residential in display...which could leave huge areas with nothing to differentiate between roads. (Especially rural areas, where there may be no motorways, a single primary highway.)
I come at this as somebody living in Arnprior. There is one highway that goes past the edge of town (17, changing to 417 near the town's eastern edge), but other than that, the major roads in the area are Renfrew County Roads and (Ottawa) Regional Roads. The way I read the current guidelines, those would all be classed as highway="minor". I think they would be more appropriately tagged highway="secondary", although perhaps I'm misunderstanding the guidelines. - Cafemusique 15:29, 7 October 2006 (BST)
Yes, "minor" has been deprecated, so we need something else. I've recently seen some regional roads / township roads that are gravel. Perhaps we need to go more by the road condition than by the administrative designation? Promote the good roads to "secondary", and demote the gravel roads to "track"? Though "track" seems like it should exclude roads intended for regular use by the public.
Or perhaps a campaign to add "tertiary" to the highway namespace? Rw 04:16, 8 October 2006 (BST)