Vote for intercity highways description changes

From, I think I should make it easier for everyone to make a decision.

The goal is to improve Thailand OSM road classification consistency and make guidelines more objective by not requiring too many map changes.

Do you agree with the following:

  1. Change trunk description from


  1. Change primary description from


  1. Change secondary description from


  1. Change tertiary description from


  1. Add to the note below table

The principle and rationale for these can be found in the link above.

Best Regards

I like it, it’s a lot clearer now.

Would that mean that local roads now become by default unclassified? Currently, their wiki baseline is tertiary.

So a tertiary or even an unclassified baseline could become primary? I would have expected upgrades/downgrades limited to 1 level, but this would mean 2 or more…

Thanks for comment.

Yes, the current wiki is confusing; I wrote this way since the term “Local Road” just indicates it is maintained by the local administrative organization, so it can be tagged as tertiary or unclassified depending on its importance. However, because most local roads are more unclassified than tertiary, setting unclassified as their baseline would be simpler, and upgrading them to higher rank would be an exception owing to their importance in comparison to that rank’s road.

I’d say yes. I don’t think we should be too tight with the baseline. Of course, the ref is the best thing we have for general guidelines, or in other words, the beginning of classification, and it is our stronghold for something ambiguous. By the way, I believe the physical criteria I’ve set are only for the road that is “clear enough” that it is high important. If their importance is not obvious, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt, in this case, to the ref.

As I quickly checked, very few roads would fall under the 2-step upgrade (and maybe no 2-step downgrade). It seems like only 3 rural roads appear to be tagged as primary (not including urban roads and bypass swap cases): นบ.3021, สค.1018 (together with connected national highways), and ชร.1063. When comparing these rural roads to nearby 4-digit national highways such as 3215, 3414, and 1209, it is clear that these rural roads are more important than those national highways, as well as several 3-digit national highways. So, limiting the level change from the baseline just because of the road owner may not be appropriate. If we assume that these roads will be transferred to the DOH, they will surely be 3-digit national highways.

So, I think the guidelines would be like: if it meets either 1) ref 2) characteristics, it is qualified for that rank; and if it meets the 3) other characteristics, it is disqualified.

Also, I like your ideas posted at the other topics, particularly the table rearranging. As per your recommendation, I would use multiple columns. I also think the source and note tags are a good idea, however they may not be necessary to tag it to all roads that utilize characteristics for tagging. We can use it for certain of those that are ambiguous or frequently fall to vandalism or edit wars. By the way, I would mention it in changeset comments.

I’m happy to report that I’ve already edited the table on the wiki, as well as the map data on trunk and primary to match the wiki.

No more headaches on trunk and primary. I’ll then tidy up the secondary highways.

By the way, I’m still open to any arguments. If you wish to change some of the rules, please leave a comment.

Happy Mapping!