Talk:Proposed features/Urban street

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion

--User:David.earl 11 Oct 2006

  • I personally would be fine with using unclassifiedand and also abutters to mark the main streets. If it is needed to emphasise the status of a road based on its use, rather than based on its real highway value, then I don't think a highway key is its place. It would be nice to see some other opions on this prier to a vote. Maybe better justification for this tag could come of it. Ben. 03:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Even in big cities, there are many kind of streets, not only main. In Madrid, for example, there are streets with 1, 2, 3, 4 or even 5 lanes in both directions, that are not classified with trunk, primary or secondary by any highway authority. They are just streets in the middle of the city.Some kind of categorization for these streets, apart from the legal highway categorization, would be fine. Quico 16:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that unclassified is fine if it is not a significant route for trafic. Otherwise if it is not a trunk, primary or secondary it could be marked as tertiary. Tertiary could also be used for other signifcantly developed roads that are wide or multilaned to stress there importance. To show its use an area can be marked as commercial etc... Ksbrowntalk 19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Most "big" roads that I know of around here which are not trunk-secondary are tertiary roads. In Britain, they are usually over 4m wide and have dashed lines down the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't. In fact, in Britain they are known by local councils as C-roads. In Glasgow, some famous roads such as Sauchiehall Street are tertiary. Therefore, I don't think that this proposal is required, and tertiary should be used instead where required. Bruce89 20:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree, use highway/tertiary for important urban through-roads (by your own judgement). Morwen 11:57, 29 March 2007 (BST)
  • I would rather add a new key "street" to stress the difference between urban and non urban roads. It might be rendered in a lighter colour than it's highway counterparts (i.e. street=tertiary in light yellow). Also, at less detailed scales, it's possible to see the rough shape of a city by watching such colour change. --Xuacu 17:32, 18 May 2007 (BST)
  • I don't think the "residential" vs "unclassified" distinction is useful, since they are not really different types of highway. Additional tagging like this can be described with abutters. However there are differences between rural and urban roads, e.g., footpaths and lighting, but these apply regardless of primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified status. This suggests to me recognising something like "urban=yes" and "urban=no". Maps of my current city typically try to distinguish "main" roads, however each map does it differently since there is apparently no official standard. E.g., Google's view at [1]. Ghouston 03:59, 12 June 2007 (BST).

Would this be Highway=urban_street, or highway=x, abutters=mixed? Would the different areas not be able to be marked as areas with each tagged differently, rather than making it render along and around the way. Oakham, Rutland being an example of this. i.e. the residential and industrial and commercial bits. Ben. 18:10 18th Decemeber 2006 (UTC)