<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
I've added my comments below Andrew's. Hope that is not too messy.
/Mike<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-08-14 03:59, Andrew Harvey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5Vjsv2S0v6VgkP9gbSFBXXK6A14baWmkPJ2p7NF37DZRkfGg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at
09:12, Tom Brennan <<a
href="mailto:website@ozultimate.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">website@ozultimate.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Like my previous post on
sidewalks, this one is also from walking and <br>
cycling all of the streets of my LGA (Willoughby). The other
area where <br>
tagging seems to me to be a bit messy is:<br>
<br>
highway=service<br>
<br>
This messiness may be more of a general OSM issue than
specifically an <br>
Australian one!<br>
<br>
Where possible I've been trying to add a service=? tag to
define these <br>
better, in line with the relevant pages on the wiki. In my
area, the <br>
majority of these seem to be:<br>
<br>
1. laneways between houses -> service=alley<br>
For me these are part of the official road network, but in
Willoughby <br>
they are normally narrow, and lead to/past people's garages.
This one <br>
seems relatively clear cut - and also appears to be the only
service tag <br>
that does relate to the official road network(?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yeah I'd agree, but these are part of the public road
network, they are just lesser importance roads because they
are mostly for access to the rear of houses.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
+1. And in the US and northern UK may be poorly maintained,
cobbled, temporarily obstructed etc, a good flag to routers.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5Vjsv2S0v6VgkP9gbSFBXXK6A14baWmkPJ2p7NF37DZRkfGg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
2. driveways (private property) -> service=driveway +
access=private<br>
This seems pretty clear cut in residential areas. It also
seems fairly <br>
clear for small business/industrial property that are for <br>
employees/business vehicles only.<br>
<br>
Where it gets a bit confusing is if the driveway is to
something else. <br>
For example, in the Willoughby area, there are many
industrial complexes <br>
which have "driveways". But if it leads to parking
(amenity=parking?), <br>
is it still a driveway, or is it just highway=service
without service=*. <br>
The access=* issues also interplays with this - because in
larger <br>
industrial complexes there may be a mix of access=private
and <br>
access=customers.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">Can you post examples? In my opinion,
a good rule of thumb for driveway is where you need to turn
off the road and cross the footpath. I realise it's not
always clear though.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5Vjsv2S0v6VgkP9gbSFBXXK6A14baWmkPJ2p7NF37DZRkfGg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Technically only the section inside the front fence is
private, the section between the footpath and road is
public but I've never mapped to this level of detail.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Personally, I ONLY use driveway for residential driveways. I feel
using it for anything else is confusing and adds no value - despite
what Map Features says. Like Andrew, I rarely split the sections
into private and public sections but it IS useful for foot and
wheelchair routing.<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5Vjsv2S0v6VgkP9gbSFBXXK6A14baWmkPJ2p7NF37DZRkfGg@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
3. parking areas<br>
This one can also be a bit confusing - following the wiki,
some of these <br>
end up being service=parking_aisle, but others are without
service=* eg:<br>
<a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897</a><br>
I imagine you can do in theory do an area query to
establish <br>
highway=service within amenity=parking, but this does seem
clunky!<br>
And not that we should be mapping for the renderer, but
the rendering <br>
also seems inconsistent:<br>
<a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923</a></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you can turn from the way directly into a parking
spot, then it should be parking aisle, so that one I think
should be parking aisle.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Slightly different view here. I find that most car parks have
"arterial" ways for ingress/exit, navigation within larger parks,
and sometimes very local through "destination" traffic; obvious from
design or width. I don't put a parking_aisle on these. I think leads
to better map presentation and routing. In Melbourne, I find that
many car park service roads double up as useful bicycle connectors.<br>
</body>
</html>