[talk-au] highway=service

[Warin]

On 14/8/21 4:45 pm, Michael Collinson wrote:
> I've added my comments below Andrew's. Hope that is not too messy.  /Mike
>
> On 2021-08-14 03:59, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Aug 2021 at 09:12, Tom Brennan <website at ozultimate.com 
>> <mailto:website at ozultimate.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Like my previous post on sidewalks, this one is also from walking
>>     and
>>     cycling all of the streets of my LGA (Willoughby). The other area
>>     where
>>     tagging seems to me to be a bit messy is:
>>
>>     highway=service
>>
>>     This messiness may be more of a general OSM issue than
>>     specifically an
>>     Australian one!
>>
>>     Where possible I've been trying to add a service=? tag to define
>>     these
>>     better, in line with the relevant pages on the wiki. In my area, the
>>     majority of these seem to be:
>>
>>     1. laneways between houses -> service=alley
>>     For me these are part of the official road network, but in
>>     Willoughby
>>     they are normally narrow, and lead to/past people's garages. This
>>     one
>>     seems relatively clear cut - and also appears to be the only
>>     service tag
>>     that does relate to the official road network(?)
>>
>>
>> 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.
> +1.  And in the US and northern UK may be poorly maintained, cobbled, 
> temporarily obstructed etc, a good flag to routers.
>
>
>
In Willoughby and other parts of Australia these may have been for 
'night soil service' where the man came to empty the outhouse.

They mostly were council property .. some have been converted into 
private property.

Some have no known owner! The council does not want to proceed to court 
for back rates as then they would take possession and be liable for 
maintenance.


>>
>>     2. driveways (private property) -> service=driveway + access=private
>>     This seems pretty clear cut in residential areas. It also seems
>>     fairly
>>     clear for small business/industrial property that are for
>>     employees/business vehicles only.
>>
>>     Where it gets a bit confusing is if the driveway is to something
>>     else.
>>     For example, in the Willoughby area, there are many industrial
>>     complexes
>>     which have "driveways". But if it leads to parking
>>     (amenity=parking?),
>>     is it still a driveway, or is it just highway=service without
>>     service=*.
>>     The access=* issues also interplays with this - because in larger
>>     industrial complexes there may be a mix of access=private and
>>     access=customers.
>>
>>
>> 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.

Example Way: 558245891. Some of these can be 'open to customers', 
otherwise private. Personally I would not tag them unless I knew, and 
even then it can change with new tenants.


>> 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.
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>     3. parking areas
>>     This one can also be a bit confusing - following the wiki, some
>>     of these
>>     end up being service=parking_aisle, but others are without
>>     service=* eg:
>>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897
>>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/-33.80928/151.20897>
>>     I imagine you can do in theory do an area query to establish
>>     highway=service within amenity=parking, but this does seem clunky!
>>     And not that we should be mapping for the renderer, but the
>>     rendering
>>     also seems inconsistent:
>>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923
>>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.80939/151.20923>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.


At least some of those "arterial" ways also have parking alongside them. 
I would still mark those as parking aisle. Where there is not adjacent 
parking then 'unclassified' would be my choice.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20210814/846875a1/attachment-0001.htm>