Clarification unclassified vs residential

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
183 messages Options
123456 ... 10
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

Peter Elderson
I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont think it is feasable. 


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 14:02 schreef Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:
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

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

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

AlaskaDave
> 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.


Andy replied: "Tagging roads that you know well as "highway=road" sounds like a mistake"
+1

I agree. Tagging highway=road means: I don't have any idea what sort of road this is (but I can see it on the satellite imagery). I hope these roads are never considered to be routable. The mkgmap program's standard style defaults to that conclusion, IIRC. I think of it more or less as a place holder, a way that needs a closer look.

Others have stated that they think of an unclassified way as something having more significance than a residential way while still being less important than a tertiary highway. (By the way, in Thailand, coincidentally, a tertiary highway is the lowest class of highway that carries a ref.). And that has been my assumption right along.

Where do we stand on that question? Is that the correct question to b asking?

On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 8:16 PM Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont think it is feasable. 


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op za 23 feb. 2019 om 14:02 schreef Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:
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
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
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 Peter Elderson
Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> writes:

> I was thinking further about the idea that came up here: deduct road type
> from the landuse=residential. It's different than current usage, and I dont
> think it is feasable.

I did not mean "deduce road type".   What I meant is that if a road is
at the lowest level of the road network (level5, below ABC and U, to use
UK terms), then I don't see why we should split that into

  level5_residential
  level5_not_residential

as part of the fundamental road type.  Both are minor, not used to get
from here to there, and one has houses, and the other doesn't.  But we
don't have

  primary_residential
  primary_not_residential

even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
level5_residential and level5_not_residential.

I was merely suggesting that if landuse=residential is tagged, then
anybody who cared about "is this area residential" could get the
answer.  Not that we should somehow infer "this is highway=residential"
and render it differently.

Do you think that level5_residential and level5_not_residential should
be rendered differently?

_______________________________________________
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 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote:
> ... But we don't have
>    primary_residential
>    primary_not_residential
>
> even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
> level5_residential and level5_not_residential.

OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was
used for something like that (see
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abutters ) but even when I
started (in 2008) I don't remember being told to use that key.

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

djakk
Hello ! 

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it. 

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))


Julien “djakk”



Le sam. 23 févr. 2019 à 16:49, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On 23/02/2019 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote:
> ... But we don't have
>    primary_residential
>    primary_not_residential
>
> even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
> level5_residential and level5_not_residential.

OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was
used for something like that (see
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abutters ) but even when I
started (in 2008) I don't remember being told to use that key.

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

djakk
... for the unclassified / residential issue : highway_level=5 or 6 and highway_physics=countryside or town


djakk


Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:25, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hello ! 

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it. 

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))


Julien “djakk”



Le sam. 23 févr. 2019 à 16:49, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On 23/02/2019 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote:
> ... But we don't have
>    primary_residential
>    primary_not_residential
>
> even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
> level5_residential and level5_not_residential.

OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was
used for something like that (see
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abutters ) but even when I
started (in 2008) I don't remember being told to use that key.

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

djakk
... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or cycleway :)

For example, in a park, some footway are “unclassified” (or highway_level=5) and some are “primary” (or highway_level=1). Very useful to render long-range trail. 

djakk


Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:44, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
... for the unclassified / residential issue : highway_level=5 or 6 and highway_physics=countryside or town


djakk


Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:25, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Hello ! 

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it. 

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))


Julien “djakk”



Le sam. 23 févr. 2019 à 16:49, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> a écrit :

On 23/02/2019 15:35, Greg Troxel wrote:
> ... But we don't have
>    primary_residential
>    primary_not_residential
>
> even though in the US that makes just as much sense as
> level5_residential and level5_not_residential.

OSM sort-of did have that a very long time ago.  The "abutters" key was
used for something like that (see
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/abutters ) but even when I
started (in 2008) I don't remember being told to use that key.

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

Erkin Alp Güney
It reminds me my road_level proposal for some reason.

24.02.2019 17:48 tarihinde djakk djakk yazdı:

> ... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or
> cycleway :)
>
> For example, in a park, some footway are “unclassified” (or
> highway_level=5) and some are “primary” (or highway_level=1). Very
> useful to render long-range trail. 
>
> djakk
>
>
> Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:44, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>     ... for the unclassified / residential issue : highway_level=5 or
>     6 and highway_physics=countryside or town
>
>
>     djakk
>
>
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

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

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

djakk
Erkin, when did you make this proposal ?

Julien


Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 18:31, Erkin Alp Güney <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It reminds me my road_level proposal for some reason.

24.02.2019 17:48 tarihinde djakk djakk yazdı:
> ... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or
> cycleway :)
>
> For example, in a park, some footway are “unclassified” (or
> highway_level=5) and some are “primary” (or highway_level=1). Very
> useful to render long-range trail. 
>
> djakk
>
>
> Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:44, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>     ... for the unclassified / residential issue : highway_level=5 or
>     6 and highway_physics=countryside or town
>
>
>     djakk
>
>
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

_______________________________________________
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

djakk
Okay I found it ! May 2018 ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 19:11, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Erkin, when did you make this proposal ?

Julien


Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 18:31, Erkin Alp Güney <[hidden email]> a écrit :
It reminds me my road_level proposal for some reason.

24.02.2019 17:48 tarihinde djakk djakk yazdı:
> ... furthermore, highway_level can be used to classify footway or
> cycleway :)
>
> For example, in a park, some footway are “unclassified” (or
> highway_level=5) and some are “primary” (or highway_level=1). Very
> useful to render long-range trail. 
>
> djakk
>
>
> Le dim. 24 févr. 2019 à 15:44, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> a écrit :
>
>     ... for the unclassified / residential issue : highway_level=5 or
>     6 and highway_physics=countryside or town
>
>
>     djakk
>
>
Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

_______________________________________________
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

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by djakk


On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello ! 

I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 

So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it. 

So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))

I could see that working!

Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being all the minor streets in a town.

If you have a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?), the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange / tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential / unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.

Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or would they stay as the current=service designation?

Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!

Feasible?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being all the minor streets in a town.


rather than replacing the highway tags I would suggest to add tags for properties which we want to describe and „can“ not yet. It is very hard to often impossible to get back to individual properties from generalized information. The highway class is such a generalized tag, the categories summarize different properties of a road, focusing on the network. It served us quite well, but it doesn’t provide answers for specific legal/technical questions, like which is the road class according to local planning authorities, or which is the network class in the national system.
These could be additional tags

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

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

djakk
Yes it must be additional tags, so that existing tools that use openstreetmap do not get lost :)

I’ll try to write this on my wiki’s page in the next days ...



Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 00:30, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> a écrit :


sent from a phone

> On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being all the minor streets in a town.


rather than replacing the highway tags I would suggest to add tags for properties which we want to describe and „can“ not yet. It is very hard to often impossible to get back to individual properties from generalized information. The highway class is such a generalized tag, the categories summarize different properties of a road, focusing on the network. It served us quite well, but it doesn’t provide answers for specific legal/technical questions, like which is the road class according to local planning authorities, or which is the network class in the national system.
These could be additional tags

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
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

Erkin Alp Güney
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.

road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
road_level=<nonzero>.

25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:

>
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello ! 
>
>     I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
>     administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
>     5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
>     lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 
>
>     So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
>     residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
>     walking on it. 
>
>     So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
>     (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>
>
> I could see that working!
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
> all the minor streets in a town.
>
> If you have a look
> at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
> pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
> the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
> tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
> connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
> (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
> unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
> CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>
> Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
> would they stay as the current=service designation?
>
> Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
> of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
> "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
> would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>
> Feasible?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

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

Re: Clarification unclassified vs residential

djakk
I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class : footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.

road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
road_level=<nonzero>.

25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello ! 
>
>     I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
>     administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
>     5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
>     lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 
>
>     So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
>     residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
>     walking on it. 
>
>     So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
>     (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>
>
> I could see that working!
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
> all the minor streets in a town.
>
> If you have a look
> at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
> pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
> the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
> tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
> connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
> (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
> unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
> CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>
> Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
> would they stay as the current=service designation?
>
> Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
> of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
> "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
> would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>
> Feasible?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

_______________________________________________
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

djakk
I meant “road for hgv” not “road for hybrid” ^^

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:35, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class : footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.

road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
road_level=<nonzero>.

25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello ! 
>
>     I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
>     administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
>     5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
>     lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 
>
>     So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
>     residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
>     walking on it. 
>
>     So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
>     (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>
>
> I could see that working!
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
> all the minor streets in a town.
>
> If you have a look
> at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
> pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
> the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
> tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
> connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
> (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
> unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
> CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>
> Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
> would they stay as the current=service designation?
>
> Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
> of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
> "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
> would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>
> Feasible?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

_______________________________________________
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

djakk
Hello ! So I have written something on the wiki : https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads

It is not definitive, feel free to add new ideas or to criticize ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:36, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I meant “road for hgv” not “road for hybrid” ^^

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:35, djakk djakk <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class : footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.

road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
road_level=<nonzero>.

25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Hello ! 
>
>     I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
>     administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
>     5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
>     lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 
>
>     So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
>     residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
>     walking on it. 
>
>     So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
>     (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>
>
> I could see that working!
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
> all the minor streets in a town.
>
> If you have a look
> at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
> pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
> the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
> tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
> connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
> (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
> unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
> CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>
> Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
> would they stay as the current=service designation?
>
> Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
> of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
> "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
> would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>
> Feasible?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

_______________________________________________
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

Fernando Trebien
In reply to this post by djakk
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:27 AM djakk djakk <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.
>
> So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.
>
> So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))

+1

--
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

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Erkin Alp Güney


sent from a phone

> On 25. Feb 2019, at 10:52, Erkin Alp Güney <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
> autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
> A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
> road_level=<nonzero>.


this is already solved, if I understood correctly what you are after: highway=trunk/primary/... plus motorroad=yes

These roads aren’t considered motorways in Germany or Italy, hence it would feel odd to tag them with highway=motorway

Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________
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
In reply to this post by djakk
On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:

>
> I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
> administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5
> levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes,
> link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.
>
> So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
> residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
> walking on it.
>
> So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
> (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>

It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind
is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)

However, some of the stuff on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads 
I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like
trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.

Best Regards,

Andy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123456 ... 10