[talk-au] highway=service

Tom Brennan website at ozultimate.com
Sun Aug 15 00:22:20 UTC 2021

On 14/08/2021 6:25 pm, Warin wrote:
> On 14/8/21 4:45 pm, Michael Collinson wrote:
>>>     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.
This comes down to what the purpose of the service=parking_aisle tag is.

Is it to distinguish major vs minor roads within a parking area - 
because that's how it's handled by renderers and routers - or to say 
where to find parking within a parking area.

I'm probably more with Michael Collinson on this one.

The parking aisle page on the wiki:
states one of the exclusions as:
"Forms the "trunk" or perimeter of the parking lot, connecting multiple 
parking aisles – use highway=service without service=* instead. There 
may be parking spaces on either side, but the roadway's primary purpose 
is to get drivers to another part of the parking lot."

So if you go by the wiki, the presence of parking spaces doesn't not 
automatically make it a parking aisle. It's about what you consider the 
way's primary purpose is.

Here's an example of a classic trunk/spoke parking lot that has sections 
of ways that are not parking_aisle:
But I certainly wouldn't split ways, and I'm fairly happy with the 
tagging/presentation. You could probably also mount an argument to map 
the circumference as highway=service without service=parking_aisle, but 
that's probably where the subjectivity comes in.

These ones are all highway=service + service=parking_aisle. But I'm 
happy again with the tagging/presentation.

Here's one where most of the internal ways are parking aisle, but one 
small section is not. This seems pointless to me.

And this one definitely should be inverted:

Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com

More information about the Talk-au mailing list