Clarification unclassified vs residential

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
183 messages Options
12345 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Greg Troxel-2
Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> writes:

> One thing I'm quite sure, anyway, is that "unclassified" should mean
> just that: "/it doesn't fall in any other classification OR we don't
> know cr.p about it (we know there is a road there, but we don't know
> how it is)/".

But it doesn't mean that in the UK.  It means "in the national road
system, with a number, but not A B or C".  So it really is a higher
class than a road which is not ABC and is not unclassified, at least as
I understand it and observed it.

In OSM we use words by their OSM defintions, not what they ought to mean
in English!

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Warin
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi
On 21/02/19 07:38, Sergio Manzi wrote:

One thing I'm quite sure, anyway, is that "unclassified" should mean just that: "it doesn't fall in any other classification OR we don't know cr.p about it (we know there is a road there, but we don't know how it is)".


No. If you don't know any thing about it then highway=road is the thing to use

For differences I like the East Africa guide ..
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/East_Africa_Tagging_Guidelines#Road_classification
Should have more photos...

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Mark Wagner
In reply to this post by Fernando Trebien
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:58:51 -0300
Fernando Trebien <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I queried place=hamlet in Washington State using Overpass Turbo and
> compared it with the current classification in OSM. Indeed, many such
> places lie next to major highways, as is the pattern in other
> countries (small communities tend to sprout near them). But there are
> many that do not. For example, Nilles Corner [1] and Osborne Corner
> [2] in Douglas County do not. What is generally expected is that the
> main route between them is made of ways whose class is
> highway=unclassified or higher. The route may overlap with routes
> between more important places, say Niles Corner to Fairview [3] whose
> main route overlaps with the tertiary WA-17 highway, which (as
> generally expected from highway=tertiary) is the main route between a
> pair of place=village: Bridgeport [4] and Coulee City [5]. What's
> interesting about the roads that connect Nilles Corner and Osborne
> Corner is that they do not connect any pair of place=village or
> higher, so there's no reason to classify them as any higher than
> unclassified. There could be a really nice multi-lane highway between
> them, but very few people would be using it. (Of course, there is none
> because the demand is very low.)

When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong into a
quirk of American political geography.  Historically, the postal service
would only deliver mail to buildings within a certain distance of a
post office, while people further away would be responsible for
visiting the post office to pick their mail up.  As a result, it was
quite common for a group of farmers or ranchers to get together and
have themselves declared a community in order to get a post office.

There are thousands of these "paper communities" scattered across the
country, and they don't exist to any degree beyond the minimum
necessary to make someone else responsible for delivering the mail.
Many of them don't even exist to that extent any more, and are merely
names on the map.

(It's also somewhat misleading to say that Del Rio Road and Y Road
connect Nilles Corner to Osborne Corner.  Rather, they were built
to connect the farms in the area to the Grand Coulee/Coulee Dam/Electric
City area, incidentally providing access between Nilles Corner and
Osborne Corner.)

--
Mark

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

marc marc
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2
Le 21.02.19 à 02:01, Greg Troxel a écrit :
> there is a road there, but we don't know how it is

that's highway=road
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Sergio Manzi
Thanks Greg,  Warin and Marc, I stand corrected on this: "unclassified" is a class of roads and an unclassified road is a "road".

Ooops... my tongue just got twisted!  :-)

Sergio


On 2019-02-21 02:01, Greg Troxel wrote:
> But it doesn't mean that in the UK. It means "in the national road
> system, with a number, but not A B or C".  So it really is a higher
> class than a road which is not ABC and is not unclassified, at least as
> I understand it and observed it.
>
> In OSM we use words by their OSM defintions, not what they ought to mean
> in English!


On 2019-02-21 06:31, Warin wrote:
> No. If you don't know any thing about it then highway=road is the thing to use


On 2019-02-21 09:39, marc marc wrote:
> Le 21.02.19 à 02:01, Greg Troxel a écrit :
>> there is a road there, but we don't know how it is
> that's highway=road


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Greg Troxel-2
Greg Troxel wrote:
> Finally, I'd suggest in the US treating unclassified and residential
> as exactly the same in importance, because we have no real notion
> of unclassified roads like the UK.

There is one de facto difference in the US, which is that
highway=unclassified means that someone has made the active decision to tag
the road that way, whereas highway=residential (numerically) probably just
means "this was class A41 in TIGER".

Therefore it's fair to assume that highway=unclassified in the US has a
similar meaning to elsewhere in the developed world - a minor road which is
not a significant through traffic artery, and which is paved unless
otherwise stated (by a surface= tag). highway=residential in rural areas of
the US, however, could mean anything from a drainage ditch via a faint
outline of a path to a three-lane tertiary that hasn't been retagged yet.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Richard Fairhurst
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Florian Lohoff wrote:
> From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road
> in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road
> within city limits. (Assuming that city limits mean residential
> usage)

That's reasonable but not _quite_ true. highway=unclassified is often used
in urban areas to denote a minor distributor road.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145016745 is a good example
(https://goo.gl/maps/YUc6XfuA5wQ2 if you'll excuse the Google Street View
link). It's the distributor road for that estate, and of greater importance
than the largely cul-de-sac residential roads going off it; but doesn't have
a significant through-traffic purpose nor the engineering standards that
would imply highway=tertiary.

> [...]
> From OSRM profiles it isnt - So it doesnt make a difference for at
> least OSRM.

OSRM's default profiles don't measure importance, only speed, and are fairly
blunt instruments which aren't used unmodified by anyone who's serious about
quality routing results. (Mapbox, OSRM's sponsors, override them with
traffic speed data, for example.) I wouldn't count them as a useful
indicator.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by Mark Wagner
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 3:46 AM Mark Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When you did your query for hamlets, I'm afraid you ran headlong into a
> quirk of American political geography.  Historically, the postal service
> would only deliver mail to buildings within a certain distance of a
> post office, while people further away would be responsible for
> visiting the post office to pick their mail up.  As a result, it was
> quite common for a group of farmers or ranchers to get together and
> have themselves declared a community in order to get a post office.

Pardon my ignorance, do those hamlets typically correspond to OSM's
description (100-200 inhabitants), in contrast with other possible
values (place=locality for no inhabitants, place=isolated_dwelling for
less than 3 households)? I'm seeing from Bing imagery that Osborne
Corner has several households, as does Nille Corner. They are close to
the generic threshold for being considered isolated dwellings, but
still pass. I'm not familiar with the exact details of how place=* is
assigned in the US. In Brazil we still use the "generic" rules for
place=* (even though I've tried pushing the adoption of our national
Geography Institute's criteria).

In any case, I could try to find another, more populated pair of
place=hamlet and the generic idea would still apply more or less.
Going over a large number of cases (I would suggest choosing a
manageable large random sample), some sort of general verifiable rule
would emerge. But more importantly, the general rule is only a
guideline to aid in choosing such a general rule. Perhaps the main
local roads connecting those communities have some sort of property
(physical quality, official classification, maintainer) that would
bring out a system that is closely related to the idea of "connections
between hamlets".

For comparison, in Brazil most hamlets (some of which look a lot like
what you just described) would be connected by unpaved municipal
roads, excluding highways that connect larger settlements. Thus,
unpaved municipal roads are highway=unclassified unless something else
would push a particular road's class up (some large industry, a port,
or the main route to a village/subprefecture, etc.).

> There are thousands of these "paper communities" scattered across the
> country, and they don't exist to any degree beyond the minimum
> necessary to make someone else responsible for delivering the mail.
> Many of them don't even exist to that extent any more, and are merely
> names on the map.

So, are they really hamlets or usually just uninhabited localities?
Nonetheless, place=locality would typically also be connected by
public highway=unclassified routes (but I expect exceptions in
restricted areas, such as in national parks).

> (It's also somewhat misleading to say that Del Rio Road and Y Road
> connect Nilles Corner to Osborne Corner.  Rather, they were built
> to connect the farms in the area to the Grand Coulee/Coulee Dam/Electric
> City area, incidentally providing access between Nilles Corner and
> Osborne Corner.)

In most countries I've seen unclassified roads providing access to the
entrances of farm properties.

In previous debates, I've agreed that such places (work places, ports,
airports, etc. in this case a large dam which is a workplace for many)
can indeed work like place=*, that is, they are traffic generators.
But in the case of those roads, they would need something equally
important at the other end to justify raising their class in OSM I
think.

So, using this area as an example, what would be a more sensible
highway classification for you? I don't think it is correct (based on
the original intention) to classify roads that have only a few houses
spread between farms as highway=residential. The wiki says (and I
agree) that residential streets typically have lower speed limits and
sometimes traffic calming devices, designed to ensure the safety of
dwellers. As such, highway=residential typically shows up in more
dense urban areas, even small ones, but not over large expanses of
farms.

Also, to me, the nearby roads like X Road Northeast [1] seem closer in
purpose to highway=track as their main function is to provide
agricultural vehicle access to cropland [2], but perhaps not in terms
of access restrictions. Tracks are usually considered access=no, but
their default access type varies by country (from "yes" in the
Netherlands to "no" in Denmark to "destination" in Germany) and the US
surely could opt for whatever default access value makes most sense
there. [3]

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#United_States_of_America
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack
[3] http://openstreetmap.org/way/5875745

--
Fernando Trebien

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Richard Fairhurst
On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:54:09AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road
> > in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road
> > within city limits. (Assuming that city limits mean residential
> > usage)
>
> That's reasonable but not _quite_ true. highway=unclassified is often used
> in urban areas to denote a minor distributor road.

But the above is the documentation we had for like 10 Years - This is
why i asked for clarification. It seems everybody has different
assumptions about usage and priority of unclassified vs residential
and those are not reflected in the unclassified tag page. The German
page has much more stuff but IMHO wrongfully added by a small group.

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/145016745 is a good example
> (https://goo.gl/maps/YUc6XfuA5wQ2 if you'll excuse the Google Street View
> link). It's the distributor road for that estate, and of greater importance
> than the largely cul-de-sac residential roads going off it; but doesn't have
> a significant through-traffic purpose nor the engineering standards that
> would imply highway=tertiary.
>
> > [...]
> > From OSRM profiles it isnt - So it doesnt make a difference for at
> > least OSRM.
>
> OSRM's default profiles don't measure importance, only speed, and are fairly
> blunt instruments which aren't used unmodified by anyone who's serious about
> quality routing results. (Mapbox, OSRM's sponsors, override them with
> traffic speed data, for example.) I wouldn't count them as a useful
> indicator.
But users try to retag residentials to unclassifieds to gain importance
in routing which would not work at least for OSRM because they are
treated identical in the default OSRM setup.

OSRM is just an example i had at hand quickly as i use it for
QA/Monitoring of routing changes.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Jan S


Am 22. Februar 2019 16:20:23 MEZ schrieb Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]>:

>On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:54:09AM -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> > From the original meaning unclassified was the lowest class road
>> > in rural or off city limits. residential was the lowest class road
>> > within city limits. (Assuming that city limits mean residential
>> > usage)
>>
>> That's reasonable but not _quite_ true. highway=unclassified is often
>used
>> in urban areas to denote a minor distributor road.
>
>But the above is the documentation we had for like 10 Years - This is
>why i asked for clarification. It seems everybody has different
>assumptions about usage and priority of unclassified vs residential
>and those are not reflected in the unclassified tag page. The German
>page has much more stuff but IMHO wrongfully added by a small group.

I understand the documentation of the highway tag as indicating that "unclassified" indeed designates a more important road than "residential". Under "usage" it reads: "See the table below for an ordered list from most important (motorway) to least important (service)." And as "unclassified" is above "residential", I would consider it as being more important (although this may not be respected by routing engines).

Also, there is nothing to support that residential roads were to be used within city limits only. Residential roads are described as an "access to housing" or "accessing or around residential areas". Residential areas may also well be unincorporated groups of houses (thinking e.g. of task description for HOT OSM tasks in Africa).

Best, Jan
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Florian Lohoff-2
On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 05:23:36PM +0100, Jan S wrote:

> I understand the documentation of the highway tag as indicating that
> "unclassified" indeed designates a more important road than
> "residential". Under "usage" it reads: "See the table below for an
> ordered list from most important (motorway) to least important
> (service)." And as "unclassified" is above "residential", I would
> consider it as being more important (although this may not be
> respected by routing engines).
>
> Also, there is nothing to support that residential roads were to be
> used within city limits only. Residential roads are described as an
> "access to housing" or "accessing or around residential areas".
> Residential areas may also well be unincorporated groups of houses
> (thinking e.g. of task description for HOT OSM tasks in Africa).
I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits.
I have said that as soon as there is usage for residential purposes
its not unclassified - Thats exactly the terminology from the wiki:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
        "Public roads of low importance within town and cities that are not
        residential may also be highway=unclassified."

Residential roads are by definition:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential
        "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."

So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Paul Allen
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:42, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits.
I have said that as soon as there is usage for residential purposes
its not unclassified - Thats exactly the terminology from the wiki:
[...]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential
        "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."

So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?

It depends how you define "residential usage."  Years ago, my walk to work (from a bus stop) took
me along a mile of unclassified road.  I actually saw a planning order pinned to a telephone pole
referring to it as U1234 (the real number has been changed to protect the innocent), so I know
it was officially unclassified.  About halfway along was a cluster of three or four cottages.  Some
people would map that as a residential area, although there were no signs indicating it was a named
hamlet.  I wouldn't class that as a residential road, not even the brief section with the cottages.  It's
an unclassified road with some houses and that's how I'd map it.  Residential areas, to me, are
named localities.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Jan S


Am 22. Februar 2019 17:59:28 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 16:42, Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have never said that residential may only be used in city limits.
No, but other did. Sorry I didn't separate this from the reference to your post. No offense meant.

>Residential areas, to me, are
>named localities.

That may be true in Western Europe, but in many places in other parts of the world there may be areas of residential use that are not named or only have, sometimes even several, unofficial denominations.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Greg Troxel-2
Jan S <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 22. Februar 2019 17:59:28 MEZ schrieb Paul Allen <[hidden email]>:
>>Residential areas, to me, are
>>named localities.
>
> That may be true in Western Europe, but in many places in other parts
> of the world there may be areas of residential use that are not named
> or only have, sometimes even several, unofficial denominations.

In the US, what's a named locality, and what has enough houses to merit
residential are not causally located.  Except that a large number of
houses probably has a name.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Florian Lohoff <[hidden email]> writes:

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
> "Public roads of low importance within town and cities that are not
> residential may also be highway=unclassified."
>
> Residential roads are by definition:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=residential
> "This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas."
>
> So - bringing this together - as soon as there is residential usage
> it cant be unclassified? Am i so wrong?

I think that is actually wrong...

In the UK, an unclassified road is signed with U and a number.  There
can be houses along them.  There can be houses along A roads.  In the
US, I know of a ighway=secondary which is a "state highway", one level
down from "US highway", the non-motorway national system.  There are
some businesses on it, but there are many houses.  This is totally
normal.  But it's not tagged residential because of houses - it's
secondary because that's the importance in the road network.

So saying "if there are hosues it must be residential" is wrong.

Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be
"quaternary".  Arguably residential should then be highway=level5,
regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about
residential or not - but as I said earlier, you can tell that from
landuse.

But, I don't really expect this to change other than by slow drift.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Jan S


Am 23. Februar 2019 03:47:50 MEZ schrieb Greg Troxel <[hidden email]>:

>Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be
>"quaternary".  Arguably residential should then be highway=level5,
>regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about
>residential or not - but as I said earlier, you can tell that from
>landuse.

I strongly support this. "Unclassified" causes much confusion outside the UK and is at the root of many equivocal tags. "Minor" might also be an appropriate denomination.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Peter Elderson
In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 09:46 schreef Jan S <[hidden email]>:


Am 23. Februar 2019 03:47:50 MEZ schrieb Greg Troxel <[hidden email]>:

>Really the notion of "unclassified" is odd, and it probably should be
>"quaternary".  Arguably residential should then be highway=level5,
>regardless of housing, and perhaps some tag on all highways about
>residential or not - but as I said earlier, you can tell that from
>landuse.

I strongly support this. "Unclassified" causes much confusion outside the UK and is at the root of many equivocal tags. "Minor" might also be an appropriate denomination.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Andy Townsend
On 23/02/2019 10:11, Peter Elderson wrote:
> In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a
> residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull
> requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential?
>
It depends on the renderer and depends on the router.

Some renderers (the first 2 I looked at) tend to go with "some sort of
distinctive grey".  Routers may avoid for car routing, like here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=53.80112%2C-1.74736%3B53.80181%2C-1.74625#map=16/53.8007/-1.7448

But it depends.

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Peter Elderson
The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is, so they can decide how to handle it.

If residential area means that road class is highway=residential unless taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear. At the moment, I don't think it is clear, and road tagging in residential areas in Nederland certainly does not follow this principle. 
If the scheme is adopted and very clearly documented, I could adjust the residential road tagging in my village (pop 25.000) in a couple of hours. Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as highway=road. 

The problem with such a default of course is: if the area is altered, roads may (and will) unintentionally change because suddenly the default applies or no longer applies. Also, wouldn't renderers and routers will have to deal with roads crossing the border of a residential area suddenly changing types, without a node to tie the action to?

If there is no general agreement: the bulk of residential roads in my area will remain 'unclassified', in the wrong sense i.e. no classification.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 12:05 schreef Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:
On 23/02/2019 10:11, Peter Elderson wrote:
> In this scheme, a highway=road (no classification) within a
> residential area would (after long dicussions and heavily debated pull
> requests) be displayed and routed as (currently) a highway=residential?
>
It depends on the renderer and depends on the router.

Some renderers (the first 2 I looked at) tend to go with "some sort of
distinctive grey".  Routers may avoid for car routing, like here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=fossgis_osrm_car&route=53.80112%2C-1.74736%3B53.80181%2C-1.74625#map=16/53.8007/-1.7448

But it depends.

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Andy Townsend
On 23/02/2019 11:36, Peter Elderson wrote:
> The tagging scheme should have a clear intention to facilitate
> rendering and routing. Then renderers and routers know what there is,
> so they can decide how to handle it.


To be clear, "highway=road" is used when it _isn't_ clear what the
classification should be.


>
> If residential area means that road class is highway=residential
> unless taggted otherwise, that should be made very clear.


No, it doesn't.


> At the moment, I don't think it is clear, and road tagging in
> residential areas in Nederland certainly does not follow this principle.


That's good!


> If the scheme is adopted and very clearly documented, I could adjust
> the residential road tagging in my village (pop 25.000) in a couple of
> hours. Most residential roads now are tagged as unclassified, I just
> have to list them, determine if the default fits, then retag them as
> highway=road.


Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds like a mistake.


>
> The problem with such a default of course is: if the area is altered,
> roads may (and will) unintentionally change because suddenly the
> default applies or no longer applies. Also, wouldn't renderers and
> routers will have to deal with roads crossing the border of a
> residential area suddenly changing types, without a node to tie the
> action to?


I think there's been a miscommunication here - there is no such
default.  It's certainly not your fault - English as used to describe
roads in the UK is the problem, with "unclassified" meaning a particular
explicit classification.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345 ... 10