Can be rendered as half-width bright yellow line. -- Erkinalp 5 August 2009
no, we don't need this
- IMHO we use unclassified there and introducing a new tag would be completely confusing and cause a lot of problems (everyone who renders maps, makes routing, all editors etc. would have to implement it, in the end you will have 2 tags: unclassified and rural with the same meaning. Also there will be confusion with highway=track. I oppose this idea to present a new tag in substitution for a heavily used one. -- Dieterdreist 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- the definition is not clear. Why is there mention of "generally unsealed" when the definition is about traffic frequency? These physical details vary all over the world and make things unclear in general definitions, that should IMHO be kept as reduced as possible. In some parts of Germany for example there are no unsealed streets: Even in rural areas every track not even a street, used just by agricultural traffic and forbidden to cars is still paved. -- Dieterdreist 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, We should first settle with track/unclassified/service/residental and then don't use rural anyway ;) Vovkav 18:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't see why unclassified is ambiguous. Its page clearly says it's for the smallest kind of roads (which aren't agricultural tracks). It's like a residential street, only -- like I've heard someone say -- there are more cows than houses along the road. So residential and unclassified are both used for all roads which aren't tertiary or more important. And then just select between those two on whether there are houses or not. If you need to tag through-roads with unclassified because your country definition of tertiary says so, then I'd recommend to revise those country definitions. --Eimai 11:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I see we need this; to get a classification for the unclassified raods, but Proposed_features/highway:minor seems to be a better name.
--Kslotte 17:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)