* Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> [160109 13:12]: > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:50:37 +0100 > Wolfgang Zenker <wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org> wrote:
>> * Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> [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
