Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:02:19 +0100
Wolfgang Zenker  wrote:

> * Mateusz Konieczny  [160109 13:12]:
> > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:50:37 +0100
> > Wolfgang Zenker  wrote:
> 
> >> * Tod Fitch  [160107 23:35]:
> >>> My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and
> >>> distinguishing between tracks and driveways or even residential
> >>> roads can be difficult there. So my initial instinct was to say
> >>> leave the ways in that part of Colorado as tracks as it can be
> >>> hard to tell on the imagery.
> 
> >>> But looking at the satellite imagery in the area you linked, they
> >>> clearly look like unpaved residential roads and dirt driveways.
> 
> >>> I’d leave the driveways in but change the tagging to:
> 
> >>> highway=service
> >>> service=driveway
> >>> surface=unpaved
> >>> access=private
> 
> >> I would do almost the same, but would leave out the access=private,
> >> as this is difficult to determine from the aerial imagery, and is
> >> implied for service=driveway anyway.
> 
> > I would strongly dispute "implied for service=driveway anyway" - in
> > some cases service=driveway is accessible for everybody, in
> > many cases it is accessible at least for foot traffic.
> 
> I agree that at least in most of Europe it would usually be
> access=destination rather than access=private. However, I don't
> think that any routing engine should route through traffic over
> service=driveway.

I would expect routers for foot and bicycle traffic to use
also ways with service=driveway (except ones explicitly tagged as
private).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:50:37 +0100
Wolfgang Zenker  wrote:

> * Tod Fitch  [160107 23:35]:
> > My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and
> > distinguishing between tracks and driveways or even residential
> > roads can be difficult there. So my initial instinct was to say
> > leave the ways in that part of Colorado as tracks as it can be hard
> > to tell on the imagery.
> 
> > But looking at the satellite imagery in the area you linked, they
> > clearly look like unpaved residential roads and dirt driveways.
> 
> > I’d leave the driveways in but change the tagging to:
> 
> > highway=service
> > service=driveway
> > surface=unpaved
> > access=private
> 
> I would do almost the same, but would leave out the access=private,
> as this is difficult to determine from the aerial imagery, and is
> implied for service=driveway anyway.

I would strongly dispute "implied for service=driveway anyway" - in
some cases service=driveway is accessible for everybody, in
many cases it is accessible at least for foot traffic.

In case of known access=private access it should be tagged explicitly.

(I guess that it is one of so many differences between
countries/regions - my experience is based mostly on Poland).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Mateusz Konieczny  [160109 13:12]:
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:50:37 +0100
> Wolfgang Zenker  wrote:

>> * Tod Fitch  [160107 23:35]:
>>> My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and
>>> distinguishing between tracks and driveways or even residential
>>> roads can be difficult there. So my initial instinct was to say
>>> leave the ways in that part of Colorado as tracks as it can be hard
>>> to tell on the imagery.

>>> But looking at the satellite imagery in the area you linked, they
>>> clearly look like unpaved residential roads and dirt driveways.

>>> I’d leave the driveways in but change the tagging to:

>>> highway=service
>>> service=driveway
>>> surface=unpaved
>>> access=private

>> I would do almost the same, but would leave out the access=private,
>> as this is difficult to determine from the aerial imagery, and is
>> implied for service=driveway anyway.

> I would strongly dispute "implied for service=driveway anyway" - in
> some cases service=driveway is accessible for everybody, in
> many cases it is accessible at least for foot traffic.

I agree that at least in most of Europe it would usually be
access=destination rather than access=private. However, I don't
think that any routing engine should route through traffic over
service=driveway.

> In case of known access=private access it should be tagged explicitly.

I agree; but we were talking about "armchair mapping" and in
that case you usually would not know what access rights applied
on the ground, so you should not add an access tag based on a guess.

Wolfgang

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 09.01.2016 um 13:12 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny :
> 
> In case of known access=private access it should be tagged explicitly


+1, generally, don't rely on defaults, add known information. Defaults are for 
data consumers (i.e. they decide how to deal with cases where they miss the 
data they need, and how they try to infer/guess it from other tags and the 
context), not for mappers

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 03:15:00PM -0700, Mike Thompson wrote:
> I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have first
> hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone through and
> changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to "highway = track."  For
> example:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6152252#map=16/40.7825/-105.1985
> 
> Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, but
> physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide access to
> two or more homes and/or ranches.  To me these are not "tracks" but
> "residential." Before I change these back, I wanted to check with the
> community.
> 
> Also, I would like your opinion on driveways (if they are mapped at all).
> My understanding is that they (at least the part between the public road
> and the house) should be tagged highway=service, service=driveway,
> access=private and not highway=track.

public property - residential buildings
highway=residential
surface=gravel

private property - residential buildings
highway=service
surface=gravel
service=driveway


IMHO it cant be a track as long as there are residential
buildings.


Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
  We need to self-defend - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Richard Fairhurst]

Greg Troxel wrote:
> I more or less agree, from the US point of view, except that
> highway=residential has a meaning of something that is 
> legally a road.

highway=residential in the US _largely_ has the meaning "this was imported
from TIGER feature code A41 and hasn't been changed". One import - albeit a
fairly massive one :) - isn't in itself a reason to strike out on a
different way of tagging from the rest of the developed world.

> The real bug here is that we need to fix the tagging system to 
> make clear legal status and type vs. physical condition.

The tagging system already does that. You have the access=* tags, operator=*
tags, and designation=* tags for the former; and you have surface=*,
tracktype=*, lanes=* etc. for the latter. highway=* is a broad overview
covering the road's importance - it isn't intended to encapsulate absolutely
everything about a road in one magic value.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-track-vs-residential-tp5864267p5864408.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Richard Fairhurst]

Mike Thompson wrote:
> Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, 
> but physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide 
> access to two or more homes and/or ranches.  To me these are 
> not "tracks" but "residential." Before I change these back, I 
> wanted to check with the community.

Generally, in developed countries, highway=residential is predominantly used
for public roads in/near nucleated settlements with housing alongside. It's
more nuanced than simply "a road with a house on it" - "a road of
residential character" would be closer.

In the case you've pointed to I would therefore err towards
highway=unclassified, surface=gravel (or =unpaved in the case of armchairing
when the imagery's unclear). I wouldn't man the barricades against either
=residential or =track, but the latter is best reserved for ungraded
double-tracks and worse.

_However_, I absolutely would man the barricades to advocate surface tags,
and I'm really pleased to see you've added one. highway=track isn't ideal
for this road, but it's a whole bunch better than highway=residential with
no surface tag. There are a couple of places in the rural US (particularly
Kansas, occasionally Oregon) where mappers have removed the tiger:reviewed
tag on rural dirt/gravel roads without adding a surface tag, at which point
the road is indistinguishable from a nice paved street in a housing estate
and routing basically goes to s--t.

(In retrospect... when the TIGER import was run, we should have imported
A41-class roads as highway=residential in urban areas, and highway=road,
fixme=yes in rural areas, using urban area polygons to distinguish between
the two. But that's all natural=water under the bridge=yes.)

cheers
Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-track-vs-residential-tp5864267p5864323.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Wolfgang Zenker]

* Tod Fitch  [160107 23:35]:
> My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and distinguishing 
> between tracks and driveways or even residential roads can be difficult 
> there. So my initial instinct was to say leave the ways in that part of 
> Colorado as tracks as it can be hard to tell on the imagery.

> But looking at the satellite imagery in the area you linked, they clearly 
> look like unpaved residential roads and dirt driveways.

> I’d leave the driveways in but change the tagging to:

> highway=service
> service=driveway
> surface=unpaved
> access=private

I would do almost the same, but would leave out the access=private,
as this is difficult to determine from the aerial imagery, and is
implied for service=driveway anyway.

> For the roads, clearly wider and serving multiple houses in the satellite 
> imagery and with names showing in the 2015 Tiger imagery, I’d tag them as

> highway=residential
> surface=unpaved
> name=(whatever the Tiger 2015 imagery says)

I would use highway=unclassified instead of residential as long as we
are not inside a settlement; the implied rules like default speed limits
tend to be different for inner-town roads and these rural roads and the
tagging should distinguish between these types of road as well.

Wolfgang

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-08 10:50 GMT+01:00 Wolfgang Zenker :

> I would use highway=unclassified instead of residential as long as we
> are not inside a settlement; the implied rules like default speed limits
> tend to be different for inner-town roads and these rural roads and the
> tagging should distinguish between these types of road as well.
>


I agree with everything written in all the posts above, besides this
citation which I'd like to relativate in parts: track does not seem
appropriate, they'll either be service or residential roads, as long as
they don't provide through access and residences are sparse like in this
example. (through access but unimportant (i.e. there are nearby
alternatives) and denser residences would still be residential IMHO, while
through way / connections generally tend to be at least unclassified (or
tertiary, etc.)). I wouldn't use unclassified for a situation like the
posted one, which is merely a short stub (no through traffic possible) and
a dead end.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Richard Fairhurst]

dieterdreist wrote:
> what's your stance on service?

Slightly difficult one, but I'd tend to concur with Florian that it's best
used for roads on private property (roughly "access-only"). When I use it I
always try and add an access and (if unpaved) surface tag - it's too
ambiguous otherwise.

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-track-vs-residential-tp5864267p5864342.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-01-08 11:57 GMT+01:00 Richard Fairhurst :

> I wouldn't man the barricades against either
> =residential or =track, but the latter is best reserved for ungraded
> double-tracks and worse.
>


what's your stance on service?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Greg Troxel]

Florian Lohoff  writes:

> public property - residential buildings
>   highway=residential
>   surface=gravel
>
> private property - residential buildings
>   highway=service
>   surface=gravel
>   service=driveway

I more or less agree, from the US point of view, except that
highway=residential has a meaning of something that is legally a road.
Here, that can be government-owned (typical) or a "private way".  But a
private way still has a name, house numbers, distinct property
boundaries of the way vs the adjoining lots, and other people may drive
on it.  You can get a speeding ticket on it from the police, which you
cannot get on a track on your own property.  

So to me highway=track means "this is not legally a road" whereas
"highway=residential" means it is.

> IMHO it cant be a track as long as there are residential
> buildings.

If the road is nearly impassable, I might still call it track, as long
as it is not legally a road (driveways are not roads).  But I 98% agree
with you, and would tend to call it driveway.

The real bug here is that we need to fix the tagging system to make
clear legal status and type vs. physical condition.



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:15:00 -0700
Mike Thompson  wrote:

> I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have
> first hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone
> through and changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to
> "highway = track."  For example:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6152252#map=16/40.7825/-105.1985
> 
> Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, but
> physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide
> access to two or more homes and/or ranches.  To me these are not
> "tracks" but "residential." Before I change these back, I wanted to
> check with the community.
> 
> Also, I would like your opinion on driveways (if they are mapped at
> all). My understanding is that they (at least the part between the
> public road and the house) should be tagged highway=service,
> service=driveway, access=private and not highway=track.
> 
> Mike

Yes, highway is for tagging function, surface etc tags for quality.

Unpaved driveway is highway=service, service=driveway not highway=track
(proper surface tag and similar may be used to tag quality).

And high-quality asphalt logging road is highway=track.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Dave Swarthout]

This is something we go round and round with in Thailand as well.
Highway=track is usually but not always a smaller, narrower way, either
paved or unpaved, that is used for agricultural or other purposes. It is
not a connector link between towns nor does it normally have residences
alongside of it. Still, you will see many cases where mappers have used
highway track to describe an unpaved road. The reason for this is probably
because they want to make such highways more obviously visible on a GPS
device.

I think you should feel free to change those cases you mentioned to
residential ways and use the appropriate surface, tracktype and access tags
as needed or desired. I agree with both you and Mateusz about driveway
tagging as well.

This
email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com

<#DDB4FAA8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 6:10 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:15:00 -0700
> Mike Thompson  wrote:
>
> > I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have
> > first hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone
> > through and changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to
> > "highway = track."  For example:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6152252#map=16/40.7825/-105.1985
> >
> > Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, but
> > physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide
> > access to two or more homes and/or ranches.  To me these are not
> > "tracks" but "residential." Before I change these back, I wanted to
> > check with the community.
> >
> > Also, I would like your opinion on driveways (if they are mapped at
> > all). My understanding is that they (at least the part between the
> > public road and the house) should be tagged highway=service,
> > service=driveway, access=private and not highway=track.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Yes, highway is for tagging function, surface etc tags for quality.
>
> Unpaved driveway is highway=service, service=driveway not highway=track
> (proper surface tag and similar may be used to tag quality).
>
> And high-quality asphalt logging road is highway=track.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Jan 8, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> hat is used for agricultural or other purposes

Question on that:

https://goo.gl/maps/Nvbmz1Z4bJp

We have a lot of public roads in Japan that, on import, were set to 
"unclassified". In rural areas - many are wrong. 

But as the roads are not residential, and not practical for through traffic, 
calling them a unclassified similarly seems wrong. They are public roads, and 
decently maintained, but very very narrow, and spiderweb between the more major 
residential and unclassified roads. I have tagged many of them as 
highway=service - as they are a rural equivalent to alleys (service=alley) - as 
they have major width limitations, parallel larger roads, and are covered with 
driveways (to greenhouses, etc) track intersections - they just happen to be 
agricultural tracks and tractor ramps, but are very similar to alleys leading 
to driveways and garages.

Eventually the fields are sold, houses built, road widened and the road turns 
into residential - and the agricultural tracks disappear under houses. A new 
residential street is born. 

I tag it this way because calling it a track or residential is misleading in my 
situation - one that doesn't exist whatsoever in California - so I am wondering 
if this situation (unbelievably spiderwebbed *rural* public roads where one is 
the "through" road and the other grid out, and then further grid out into 
farming tracks) is seemingly uncommon in other places. 

I have never seen a place with so many public, passable, routable roads in a 
rural area ever. It is like a city grid without the buildings. 

Having them render as residential or tracks is very misleading - same as 
rendering 2.5m public alley ways in Tokyo as "tracks". 

Being able to see the difference between the "easy road" the "rural alley" road 
and the "farming track" is paramount. There are tons of tracks along the river 
and up into logging cuts, I'm not talking about those - and I don't want these 
confused with them either. 

Google and Apple both have the issue, and I get routed down a road where it is 
easy to drive - but only 20km/h. Next to it is the road I should be on. This is 
because this distinction is not in their data - just "unclassified" and "2.5m 
width". It isn't residential nor track.  The duckiness of the road is lost. 


I would almost suggest service=rural or minor_rural to document this. 

Opinions? 

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Mike Thompson]

I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have first
hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone through and
changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to "highway = track."  For
example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6152252#map=16/40.7825/-105.1985

Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, but
physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide access to
two or more homes and/or ranches.  To me these are not "tracks" but
"residential." Before I change these back, I wanted to check with the
community.

Also, I would like your opinion on driveways (if they are mapped at all).
My understanding is that they (at least the part between the public road
and the house) should be tagged highway=service, service=driveway,
access=private and not highway=track.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway = track vs. residential

[Tod Fitch]

My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and distinguishing 
between tracks and driveways or even residential roads can be difficult there. 
So my initial instinct was to say leave the ways in that part of Colorado as 
tracks as it can be hard to tell on the imagery.

But looking at the satellite imagery in the area you linked, they clearly look 
like unpaved residential roads and dirt driveways.

I’d leave the driveways in but change the tagging to:

highway=service
service=driveway
surface=unpaved
access=private

For the roads, clearly wider and serving multiple houses in the satellite 
imagery and with names showing in the 2015 Tiger imagery, I’d tag them as

highway=residential
surface=unpaved
name=(whatever the Tiger 2015 imagery says)

Adding the buildings the driveways lead to would be a nice touch but add to 
your work load.

Cheers,
Tod


> On Jan 7, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> I am editing in Colorado, US in a rural part of the state. I do have first 
> hand knowledge of the area. It looks like someone has gone through and 
> changed many ways tagged "highway = residential" to "highway = track."  For 
> example:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/6152252#map=16/40.7825/-105.1985 
> 
> 
> Although these are gravel surfaced roads (not yet tagged that way, but 
> physically that is what they are), the ones in question provide access to two 
> or more homes and/or ranches.  To me these are not "tracks" but 
> "residential." Before I change these back, I wanted to check with the 
> community.
> 
> Also, I would like your opinion on driveways (if they are mapped at all). My 
> understanding is that they (at least the part between the public road and the 
> house) should be tagged highway=service, service=driveway, access=private and 
> not highway=track. 
> 
> Mike 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging