[Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:00:41 +0000
Gerd Petermann <GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com> wrote:

> yes, a missing name should be no reason for a
> highway=residential_link.
> 
> During the last days I've reviewed the remaining
> highway=residential_link roads, a few of them are quite special, so I
> fully understand that mappers have the idea that residential might
> not be correct, esp. when they believe that a residential road
> requires buildings close to it, which in my eyes is also not
> mandantory.
> 
> So, I see two possibilities:
> 1) change the wiki(s) and validators to make absolutely clear that
> the _link suffix should not be used with other than the major roads
> which are now documented or
> 2a) change the wiki(s) to tolerate suffix _link for all types of
> minor ways (also footway, service etc) with the advice to use them 
> for 
> - roads that split at junctions
> - shortcuts before junctions
> (both with pictures)
> - maybe more  ?
> without forcing this suffix for those roads.
> 2b) tell data consumers, QA tools etc. to treat the roads
> similar to those without the suffix.
> 
> pro 1): easy to do
> contra 1): many users will not care about what is written in a wiki,
> so edit wars are possible
> 
> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test 
> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link)
> contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify 
> reg. 2b)
> 
> So, my proposal:
> Let's do 1) and I'll try to keep an eye on Taginfo to 
> warn mappers when they use the _link suffix for 
> a minor road as long as we don't implement some kind
> of automatism for that.
> 
> Gerd
> 
> ________________________________________
> Von: Michał Brzozowski <www.haxor at gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 10:21
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Joachim <noreply at freedom-x.de> wrote:
> >  Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
> > highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
> > current situation.
> 
> This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a
> name. Keep in mind this is specifically why addr:place was invented -
> there are villages (in quite a few countries around Europe, for
> instance) when streets have no names, yet they are still residential.
> The QA software you use makes wrong assumptions.
> 
> Michał

The big problem with 2a is that breaks nearly all data consumers of
road network data and increases tagging complexity without noticeable
benefits.

It reminds me about
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913