Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On 06/08/2009, at 12:58 AM, Renaud Martinet wrote: There has been a lot of discussion on the talk-fr list but once we came to a consensus, it was easy to put in place because we have our own MapFeatures page. Probably you should have one also... That might work for countries where English isn't the main language, but I doubt it would work for Australia and similar countries. I would guess that many people would just read the general MapFeatures pages and follow their interpretation of that, rather than notice the small links to a country-specific page. It'd probably be impossible to find out, but it would be interesting to know how many Australian mappers (not just those here or on talk- au) actually know about the Australian Tagging Guidelines page. I had been doing some mapping in OSM for about two months before I happened to stumble upon it, but in that time I misinterpreted several things that were written using UK/European terms. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. -1. I would contradict this for streets. I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of importance - yes - but once we drop below that infrastructure, all the remaining ways should be considered as equal, and personally *I* include tertiary in that. So residential, service and probably even track as well as unclassified are of equal importance when it comes to the main function of moving vehicles from a to c. The argument about 'is way x better than way y' where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? Although the designation of 'green belt' within an urban area probably adds a level of uncertainty :( -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. -1. I would contradict this for streets. I would correct that. Roads that form the main road network have a scale of importance - yes - but once we drop below that infrastructure, all the remaining ways should be considered as equal, and personally *I* include tertiary in that. So residential, service and probably even track as well as unclassified are of equal importance when it comes to the main function of moving vehicles from a to c. lat's put it like this: it depends where and why you want to go to some place. For a farmer, lumberjack or forest police a track is important, no doubt. I intended importance for the street grid. IMHO Of course a tertiary road is more important than un unclassified or residential one. Otherwise: what would be the distinction? Generally you could find out the importance by evaluating (or estimating) the relative traffic frequency. Relative means: relative to the area / surroundings. The argument about 'is way x better than way y' where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? yes, I agree that there is no consensus about the distinction of importance between unclassified and residential, and maybe not even has to be. But this is the first time I learn that there is also doubt about the distinction of tertiary from residential and unclassified. The latter 2 IMHO are clearly less important than tertiary. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: The argument about 'is way x better than way y' where one is residential and one is unclassified is the mistake being made, and I would still like some one the provide a situation where unclassified would be used in an urban area which is by default 'residential/industrial' ? yes, I agree that there is no consensus about the distinction of importance between unclassified and residential, and maybe not even has to be. But this is the first time I learn that there is also doubt about the distinction of tertiary from residential and unclassified. The latter 2 IMHO are clearly less important than tertiary. The distinction between tertiary and unclassified in the UK is rather blured now. Any road that does not have a classification is 'unclassified' but there ARE no 'C' roads, so by extension there are no tertiary roads in the UK. However many roads in rural areas ( and I live in the Cotswolds ) are probably tertiary or track rather than unclassified. Private roads ( such as provided across private estates ) may well be built to a high standard and have a right of way over, that is they ARE more important than tertiary roads in the road system, yet they are legally unclassified. It's for that reason I think trying to apply 'levels of importance' to the lowest highway tier IS the problem? If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? Of cause 'unadopted' is the actual legal status of roads that are not maintained by the state in some way, and these can be urban or rural :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? I wonder which type of classification you talk about. Is this about administrative, physical or grid hierarchy? Usually all these aspects are covered by some kind of (sometimes different) classification. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? I wonder which type of classification you talk about. Is this about administrative, physical or grid hierarchy? Usually all these aspects are covered by some kind of (sometimes different) classification. Simple highway= - which is what we are talking about -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/6 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: If there are countries where the road classification system identifies tertiary roads distinctly then fair enough, but most of the residential and service roads in the UK are probably tertiary rather than unclassified, which puts them above unclassified. However there is still nothing really distinct between these two levels? I wonder which type of classification you talk about. Is this about administrative, physical or grid hierarchy? Usually all these aspects are covered by some kind of (sometimes different) classification. Simple highway= - which is what we are talking about Actually I don't understand, how a service-road, which is by definition not intended for general through traffic (don't know if this is English), can be considered tertiary, which is one level below secondary and has by this a connective function. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:18 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: Change highway=unclassified definition to be more explicit, for example: Are you just speaking about Australia wiki pages or in general ? No administrative classification. Unclassified roads typically form the interconnecting grid network of residential and other Urban road ways. Here in France, we reuse the highway=tertiary for such things since tertiary doesn't really exists as administrative level. And a new highway classification highway=rural which would be: No administrative classification. Rural roads typically form the lowest form of the non-Urban interconnecting grid network. Rural roads also connect more than one farm to urban areas even if they are no through roads. Hopefully the refinement of unclassified and the addition of a new highway type seen mostly in rural areas of Australia and I'm guessing other countries with large areas of sparsely populated areas. We also have some sparsely populated areas and we were able the handle them with the existing classification tertiary/unclassified/residential/track. Didn't had to create another one which would just add confusion. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: It's up to the AU community what to do about this, but be aware that in the European Axis there's a very strong feeling that for a road to be tagged residential, there needs to be houses (or other dwellings) on it, and for it not to be designed for through traffic. I've had no objections for highway=rural on the talk-au list, but these roads are distinct from tracks and the volume of traffic that goes along them. I feel there is a very real need to describe something that is between residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been used. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: be aware that in the European Axis there's a very strong feeling we are very aware of the European Axis there are many terms in English which can be used Eurocentric Cultural Imperialism etc Please guys, your corner of the world is small You don't even have big populations like India and China Would you consider being more open to dialogue rather than diatribe and consider that what you think is normal isn't normal for others. We accept that things are different, we actually like being different, and it is a cultural norm DownUnder. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
John Smith wrote: I feel there is a very real need to describe something that is between residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been used. If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new one -- you can use Any Tags You Like. Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. You just have to describe a particular type of road as best you can, without necessarily needing a reference to any other type of road. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new one -- you can use Any Tags You Like. Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. You just have to describe a particular type of road as best you can, without necessarily needing a reference to any other type of road. I want some sort of consensus otherwise there will be a LOT of work, and possibly twice after something else is thought of, and that's what I'm trying to avoid by trying to get something on the map features page. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: In addition the Australian Tagging Guidelines (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. I've done some investigation on this specific point, and found the following: The edit which added the current definition of residential roads to that page was made on 2nd January 2008 (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Australian_Tagging_Guideline sdiff=67689oldid=66241) by Lakeyboy in an edit with no summary. I can find no discussion of this change on the wiki talk page or Talk-AU beforehand. I have not heard back from lakeyboy yet to answer the implicit question, whose answer I believe will either be convention already adopted in AU or decided by meeting of mappers in Melbourne however, at that point, Jan 08, the concept was written. The Tag:highway=residential page was started on 4 April 08 - unclassified - a wider road used by through traffic - residential - a narrower road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. and was last edited 4 August 09 * '''unclassified''' - a road used by through traffic '''residential''' - a road generally used only by people that live on that road or roads that branch off it. to remove narrower and wider ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
After reading the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines page, it strikes me that you are already redefining most of the values for the highway key. So why would you continue to refer to the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features page. I guess that is because it is available in English. As Pieren already mentioned, in France we also use some values for slightly different things that the ones defined in the MapFeatures. We had to because after translation we don't always come up with something that we can relate to. Different cultures result in different features in cities or even in the countryside (think cattle grids in Scotland for example). So we had to really consider highway tag values to reflect how important a road is. For the motorway value, well we have the same type of roads but for most of the others, we had to slightly change the definition to fit our road network. There has been a lot of discussion on the talk-fr list but once we came to a consensus, it was easy to put in place because we have our own MapFeatures page. Probably you should have one also... On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the top-level to the smallest footpath. I think Martin really has a point here. If you tag the most important type of road in your country with highway=motorway and that I do the same in mine, at the end of the day even if physically the roads aren't the same they are still the most important in both countries. And I beleive that's what the highway tag is about. The are other tags to describe the physical attributes of a road or the administrative classification. Anyway the MapFeatures are probably still too UK centric, even though some effort as been made to make it more general. And I can how it's confusing people in countries where English is spoken but the road network is radically different from the UK. Renaud. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk: John Smith wrote: I feel there is a very real need to describe something that is between residential and track and up until this point in time unclassified has been used. tracks at least in Germany are not considered roads, but ways, that is they are not intended for cars to travel (in some regions it is even generally forbidden to use them even without explicit signs), but for farmers to access their fields, for foresters to access the forest, etc. You are generally allowed to use them as pedestrian or cyclist but not by car. As long as nobody is nearby there is also people using them (ilegally) by car btw. If there are types of roads in Australia that you feel the existing tags don't adequately describe, feel free to start using a new one -- you can use Any Tags You Like. +1 Bear in mind that the highway tags aren't meant to be a sliding scale of importance, or follow a strict hierarchy. -1. I would contradict this for streets. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/5 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Jonathan Bennett wrote: In addition the Australian Tagging Guidelines (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. however, at that point, Jan 08, the concept was written. The Tag:highway=residential page was started on 4 April 08 yes, but there was already a definition on the main mapfeatures-table stating something like at least on one side houses. Also it was already clear by this definition, that this was the lowest class (say above service) of real streets in inhabited areas. The single descriptions of each tag came long after the general descriptions on the mapfeatures page. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [talk-au] Fwd: Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Luke Woolley wrote: Currently, for local roads, I use residential for all local streets which have houses along them. I use unclassified for all other local roads, such as ones that run through industrial estates, rural areas past paddocks, virtually everything except for residential areas. I assume this is sort of in line with what other mappers are tagging. not if you live in Germany where unclassified is noted as more important than residential, and therefore suited to industrial areas. -- BOFH excuse #405: Sysadmins unavailable because they are in a meeting talking about why they are unavailable so much. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On 03/08/2009, at 11:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/8/3 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: In any case, if you have a router that does this kind of thing, wouldn't it be better to base it off landuse=residential/industrial? the problem is, that it is far more timeconsuming to check this for all roads instead of having the information already avaible as such. It'd probably take a bit longer to convert from the OSM data to whatever format your router actually uses, but it also means you could treat roads in other landuse areas differently too. well, tag whatever you like, I just can tell you, that the definiton in the wiki says for residential, that there must be at least at one side residences. The highway=residential wiki page doesn't directly say that, but may imply it. The problem is that a lot of the words used seem to be based on the British way of defining roads and that doesn't necessarily translate into non-British English very well, let alone into other languages (as seen in some of the other discussions). Most of the Highway page talks about British road classifications, and things like (tertiary) In the UK, they tend to have dashed lines down the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't, which doesn't really help people figure out how it is supposed to apply to other countries. What exactly does This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway mean? If you take 'highway' to be a synonym for 'road' then suburban residential streets shouldn't be tagged like that because they are unclassified. If it's not a synonym, then how do industrial streets get tagged, because they're not highways. In addition the Australian Tagging Guidelines (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. Which brings us around to one of the major questions in this argument. If the consensus (which may exist in Europe, but I'm far from certain is global) is to use one definition, but within a region there is a consensus to use a different definition, what do people want to happen? If you don't care about this definition, do as you like. You'll IMHO loose a datum and gain nothing. There are other ways of storing that data (e.g. landuse) and roads in Australia aren't tagged according to the highway=residential wiki page at the present time, so what exactly do we lose? We might not be able to use exactly the same routing settings as in Europe, but I'm pretty certain they are never going to work as-is anyway, simply because things are different over here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/4 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: On 03/08/2009, at 11:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: well, tag whatever you like, I just can tell you, that the definiton in the wiki says for residential, that there must be at least at one side residences. The highway=residential wiki page doesn't directly say that, but may imply it. you're right, it doesn't say that explicitly (any more?), and I couldn't find it neither in the history, but I am sure (100%) that is was there some time (last year) ago and somewhere. Maybe it was on a different page. But I'm sure, it was explicitly written in the wiki. Most of the Highway page talks about British road classifications, and things like (tertiary) In the UK, they tend to have dashed lines down the middle, whereas unclassified roads don't, which doesn't really help people figure out how it is supposed to apply to other countries. IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the top-level to the smallest footpath. What exactly does This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway mean? It means that's a road in residential areas that is less important than unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary, etc. according to your local hierarchy. In addition the Australian Tagging Guidelines (which Liz mentioned were written a year before the residential page) explicitly disagree with the residential page. Which brings us around to one of the major questions in this argument. If the consensus (which may exist in Europe, but I'm far from certain is global) is to use one definition, but within a region there is a consensus to use a different definition, what do people want to happen? There are other ways of storing that data (e.g. landuse) and roads in Australia aren't tagged according to the highway=residential wiki page at the present time, so what exactly do we lose? You will probably have more traffic led through residential areas if also other areas are tagged entirely residential and the (current) router doesn't see the differences. You could also probably overcome this issue with subtags like width (to introduce more classes on a sublevel). IMHO the routing will work as long as the above mentioned (hierarchy of streets) is kept. Even if you abandon all residential and unclassified roads and start your classification from tertiary upwards, routing will somehow work - you will simply have less possibilities to distinguish slight differences. We might not be able to use exactly the same routing settings as in Europe, but I'm pretty certain they are never going to work as-is anyway, simply because things are different over here. this I don't understand. Can you give me an example? I would appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, so if there's something you would consider relevantly (in terms of routing) different to Europe, you could name it and maybe there is a solution to solve it. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO the highway-class is not about lines on the street, not even about width, these are all relative and dependant on local habits. It's about structuring your road-grid into different levels. From the top-level to the smallest footpath. Interesting. I don't disagree with this, but I though I'd put in my two cents - don't forget about verifiability. I think it is desirable to be able to tag a particular way (by considering the characteristics of that way only) without knowledge of the entire local road-grid. I can only presume that this is why little examples like lines on the street are given. If this doesn't apply in Australia, I think other more appropriate *concrete* examples would be helpful, especially for new mappers. We might not be able to use exactly the same routing settings as in Europe, but I'm pretty certain they are never going to work as-is anyway, simply because things are different over here. this I don't understand. Can you give me an example? I would appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, so if there's something you would consider relevantly (in terms of routing) different to Europe, you could name it and maybe there is a solution to solve it. Please, don't tag for the router! Tag what's on the ground (e.g. go ahead and call a street residential if it's a residential street, etc. - these should be defined according to the characteristics of the ways as they are on the ground), then leave the routing settings for the router (e.g. in Australia, tell your router whether or not you prefer residential streets to unclassified streets, etc.). What's important when deciding how to tag ways is that they are verifiable, and accurately describe the physical reality. If you do that, routing (and rendering) will take care of itself. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: this I don't understand. thankyou for realising this. I can't speak for others in Au, but I've visited many countries in my young adulthood, as well as being born elsewhere again and I certainly know that roads in Australia are different to roads in New Zealand, although similar, and different to roads in Nouvelle Caledonie again, which I drove around in the 1970s. I have also visited Greece, the Balkans, even Germany! Can you give me an example? We have tried, and you just don't believe what we say I would appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, I don't believe it is possible so if there's something you would consider relevantly (in terms of routing) different to Europe, you could name it and maybe there is a solution to solve it. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/4 Liz ed...@billiau.net: I would appreciate to have the same routing and rules allover the world, I don't believe it is possible I have been to different countries too, e.g. to Africa, and I don't think the road systems are all the same. I know that there is big differences. But this doesn't explain why routing shouldn't work as long as you keep the hierarchy. In the end, you will have to drive on the roads that are there. There is no possibility if you go by car. I didn't say that I expect e.g. travel time estimations to work everywhere with the same rules, but simple routing - given the relative importance - should IMHO make routing possible worldwide. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On 02/08/2009, at 9:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible (slow, dangerous and noisy for residents / playing kids), while I don't see this in industrial or commercial context. Not having been to Europe I can't say for sure, I wouldn't say that in Australia. I'd generally prefer residential over industrial roads, because the latter have more trucks, more variability in road condition (due to heavy vehicle damage), and the like. In any case, if you have a router that does this kind of thing, wouldn't it be better to base it off landuse=residential/industrial? On 03/08/2009, at 7:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sorry, but I can't believe that. All roads in your country have the same width? The same minimum radius for curves? They don't, but that's more to do with tertiary - residential/ unclassified than it's not really on an industrial/residential basis - what we tag as tertiary is different to what we tag as residential in both areas. (IMHO) residential: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=-37.675859,145.165879spn=0.000252,0.000597t=hz=21 (IMHO) unclassified (~25% wider in the aerial): http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=-37.769521,145.02807spn=0.000504,0.001195t=hz=21 Sure, and I can find a heap of examples where they're the same. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
2009/8/3 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: On 02/08/2009, at 9:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: yes. A residential road should be avoided if possible (slow, dangerous and noisy for residents / playing kids), while I don't see this in industrial or commercial context. Not having been to Europe I can't say for sure, I wouldn't say that in Australia. I'd generally prefer residential over industrial roads, because the latter have more trucks, more variability in road condition (due to heavy vehicle damage), and the like. OK, so it remains the same: there is an interest to know whether it is a residential street or a small one in a not-residential-area. In any case, if you have a router that does this kind of thing, wouldn't it be better to base it off landuse=residential/industrial? the problem is, that it is far more timeconsuming to check this for all roads instead of having the information already avaible as such. On 03/08/2009, at 7:50 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sorry, but I can't believe that. All roads in your country have the same width? The same minimum radius for curves? They don't, but that's more to do with tertiary - residential/ unclassified than it's not really on an industrial/residential basis - what we tag as tertiary is different to what we tag as residential in both areas. well, tag whatever you like, I just can tell you, that the definiton in the wiki says for residential, that there must be at least at one side residences. If you don't care about this definition, do as you like. You'll IMHO loose a datum and gain nothing. (IMHO) residential: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=-37.675859,145.165879spn=0.000252,0.000597t=hz=21 (IMHO) unclassified (~25% wider in the aerial): http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=-37.769521,145.02807spn=0.000504,0.001195t=hz=21 Sure, and I can find a heap of examples where they're the same. but I guess you won't find an industrial zone with very narrow streets (unclassified, probably you'll find footways and service), while of course in residential areas there might be wider streets (and often they won't be residential but tertiary then). Just for my interest: is any of you familiar with the national/local planning regulations for roads in your area? Maybe it would help to have a look if you haven't already done so. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
On Mon, 3 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Just for my interest: is any of you familiar with the national/local planning regulations for roads in your area? Maybe it would help to have a look if you haven't already done so. Yes I am, you can't read them on line, and I wasn't going to pay, so I read them in the University library. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] residential and unclassified in Australia WAS definition of the main highway-tag
/moved this discussion to another thread as it is not about the topic in the headline/ 2009/8/2 Elizabeth Dodd ed...@billiau.net: On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Furthermore industrial areas are built according to standards that allow easy use with trucks, while in residential areas you will more often have smaller streets and straighter curves, which will cause problems to big trucks. That does not apply in our country The roads are all built to the one standard. sorry, but I can't believe that. All roads in your country have the same width? The same minimum radius for curves? We don't have mediaeval cities, with narrow streets, overhanging upper stories and other problems like that. some call it problems, I'd call it a feature ;-) I had a quick look and here's 2 examples: (IMHO) residential: http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=-37.675859,145.165879spn=0.000252,0.000597t=hz=21 (IMHO) unclassified (~25% wider in the aerial): http://maps.google.it/maps?hl=deie=UTF8ll=-37.769521,145.02807spn=0.000504,0.001195t=hz=21 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
