Planners of road corridors are thus confronted with the problem of how to translate capacity considerations into action within the context of valued landscapes that have been recognized as such by the local population. Public Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) can be used to identify these valued places. However, a survey of preferences does not necessarily yield information about the interpretation of weakly separated preservation options. In this paper, we apply the technique of Co-Valuation Tension Graphing to the question of how aggregate PPGIS data indicate preservation-stability, ambiguity-sensitivity, negotiation, and dependency on corridor planning as conditions for road-infrastructure development. Empirically, there are 1044 participants and 3132 mapped valued landscapes of Dutch corridor planning involving 1734 points, 1120 polygons, and 278 lines. The study applies sustainability-value coupling, land use selection, co-land use, and preservation-point concentration measures. The findings demonstrate that the public preference pattern is structured even if there is no preference for a unique sacrifice hierarchy. Company settlement and development potential show the strongest value coupling (rs = 0.596). Water body and soil represent the strongest substrate for environmental preservation (rs = 0.492). Agricultural land represents the most planning sensitive use because it shows positive relationships with ecology and biodiversity, soil, water bodies, and spatial quality and negative relationships with accessibility, development potential, citizen settlement, well-being and health, and social relevance. There is only very weak value selection of roads by preference scores but the land use adjacent to road infrastructure represents business, semi-built up, agricultural, and railway terrain. Preservation-point values demonstrate the extent of choice compression with 39.5% of respondents scoring above 50, 23.8% above 60, and 13.7% above 70 points. PPGIS tables may inform corridor planning if interpreted as relational evidence of value coupling, land use sensitivity, and preservation compression.