[Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Paul Johnson]

That actually looks pretty correct.  It's a state highway and emergency
vehicles are allowed to travel on it, so emergency=yes would be appropriate
as well.  ref=MI 185 would be better, since US references are XX YYY where
XX is the state postal abbreviation (NOT SH, SR, K, M or whatever), but
source:maxspeed=US:rural makes no sense at all (not just here, but in any
context).

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:08 PM Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it> wrote:

> Venice situation is unusual but not unique and in other contexts different
> tagging schemes have been used, not limited by the footway/pedestrian
> alternative.
>
> As an example see how this road in Mackinac Island (*no motor vehicles
> there...*) is tagged: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/17874338
>
> I've seen others too, but OTOMH I can't remember where, probably France (*possibly
> St. Malo...*) and/or Netherland, but by Googling for "pedestrian
> town/city" and then checking on OSM,  several pops up...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sergio
>
>
> On 2019-02-26 15:30, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
>
> Am Di., 26. Feb. 2019 um 14:40 Uhr schrieb Sergio Manzi <smz at smz.it>:
>
>> ... and not only cycleways: have a look here, where I live:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/45.4364/12.3334
>>
>> All are "highway=pedestrian", at the same level, but believe me: they are
>> not!
>
>
>
>
> Venice is a globally unique (or maybe almost unique) exception anyway, but
> what we currently have there is the result of people reclassifying all the
> footways as pedestrian roads, even if they are 50 cm wide. I have started
> in the past several attempts to open a discussion on this, but it felt like
> Don Quixote. See this as an example:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/488627565/history I have surveyed it
> myself, like many others, where I began to reclassify the very narrow
> footpaths from pedestrian to footway, but I am not local and people destroy
> the finer grained distinction of footway and pedestrian as soon as you add
> them, I guess they do not want the red dots. It is unfortunate, because it
> makes the Venice map much harder to read and less useful. If you are local,
> please try to improve the situation, we do not need new tags, it would be
> sufficient to apply the existing ones consistently rather than
> indiscriminately.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190226/7852dc78/attachment.html>