[talk-au] Mapping shared driveways

Wed Mar 16 01:12:39 UTC 2022

Hey Matthew,

I think the distinction is inherited from the distinction between 
highway=service and highway=residential. A "regular" driveway shouldn't 
be a residential road, and a narrow, but otherwise unremarkable 
residential road doesn't become a service road.

I do feel as though there is some overlap between highway=residential 
and highway=service as they are used. I've seen some residential roads 
tagged as service roads because they are "less important" or narrower 
than surrounding roads; possibly in order to affect the rendering. If a 
residential road is narrow enough though, it can be tagged as alley.

If I had to try and define the difference, it'd probably be based on 
whether the road is accessing a "single property" or not. The wiki 
definition of "highway=service" is for access roads to a building, 
servo, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc. This 
would suggest that it is appropriate for roads that access a large 
property with multiple tenants, which could be analogous to a subdivided 
parcel of land with multiple units. Having a street name should 
generally be the giveaway, some googling also suggests that the lack of 
footpaths, streetlights, etc are other common features.

Ultimately though it's subjective, and Seb's examples are probably three 
perfect examples of edge cases.

Example 1 (818426144): Agree that highway=residential is not appropriate 
here. It looks like a driveway from the road functions, but the actual  
properties seem to access from shared driveways branched off of the main 
way: personally I'd say highway=service with five pups gems branching 
off, but I wouldn't "correct" the main branch if it had been tagged as a 
pipe stem as well. It does happen to be very long, though: if it was 
given a gazetted name, with each house getting renumbered accordingly, I 
think residential would be a justifiable alternative. The way north of 
this (181739516) is an example of just that: the mapper has gone with a 
plain highway=service, but residential would have been my first choice.

The second example, Tilbavale Close, doesn't look like a driveway, has 
individually numbered properties, and (for lack of a more scientific 
word) doesn't "feel" like a driveway. It's a narrow residential street. 
The funny spurs coming off the Close (184844140), even though they are 
part of the gazetted roadway, do look like shared driveways.

The last example (Cassugan Court) looks like like a driveway from the 
road, but someone has gone and gazetted a name and numbered the 
properties with it. Each property does have their own driveway branching 
off of it, though, so I'd say this looks like the most "driveway-ish" a 
road could be while still being highway=residential. If I came across 
this with a plain highway=service tag though, I'm not sure I'd correct 
it.

  It might be easier to define a pipe stem/shared driveway by what it 
isn't: it isn't a through road, it isn't any narrow residential road, it 
isn't any "short" residential road, etc…

Dian

On 2022-03-16 11:17, Matthew Seale wrote:

> So what then distinguishes highway=residential from a shared driveway 
> in Sebastian's 3 examples?
> 
> * The first way 818426144 is an unnamed shared service road, so seems 
> to neatly fit the pipestem example as explained.  The addresses in this 
> style of development are likely to be unit numbers, otherwise sharing a 
> shared main road street addresss.
> * The second way 184844142 and the third way 429541974 are named roads 
> that appear as named roads on the JOSM Vicmap road network layer.  The 
> addresses in these instances will most likely use that street name as 
> their address, not the next main road they connect to.   So these don't 
> appear to neatly fit the concept of a shared driveway to my thinking.
> 
> Otherwise taken to it's extreme interpretation there would be a large 
> number of highway=residential that, due to being in privately developed 
> areas, could be change to pipestem.  I don't think that is the intent.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Matthew
> 
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 9:42 AM Dian Ågesson <me at diacritic.xyz> wrote:
> 
> Interesting discussion; it does seem like the consensus is landing on 
> the side of service=pipestem.
> 
> There are 668 instances of driveway=pipestem in Australia: 
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gU6, but there is 0 instances of 
> service=pipestem: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUd. However, it seems 
> as though I have had a disproportionate influence (509 of 
> driveway=pipestem were last edited by me 
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUf)
> 
> I don't have a strong preference either way, so I'm happy to move over 
> to the service=pipestem structure (possibly through bulk edit?)
> 
> Dian
> 
> On 2022-03-16 08:53, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> 
> In the global community it's still disputed, see 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems 
> and my proposal to have this as an editor preset 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/239 where the 
> tagging question is still not resolved.
> 
> I've actually come around to the idea that service=pipstem is better, 
> rational being that service=driveway is very clearly defined on the 
> wiki as a non-shared driveway leading to a single residence. I think 
> it's best we leave that intact and have a sibling tag service=pipestem 
> for shared driveways. Otherwise you'll need to redefine 
> service=driveway to be any type of shared or non-shared driveway and 
> add a new tag driveway=single to most existing highway=service.
> 
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 08:10, Tom Brennan <website at ozultimate.com> 
> wrote: I think I started the last discussion on this, so I'll wade in!
> Driveways are a bit of a nightmare - there are lots that don't fit
> neatly into one bucket or another.
> 
> We did agree that service=driveway, driveway=pipestem was better than
> service=pipestem.
> 
> It's probably 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as to whether the 
> ones
> below are all shared driveways. Some could equally be classified as
> private residential roads.
> 
> But they could all do with a clean up, one way or the other!
> 
> cheers
> Tom
> ----
> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning
> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com
> 
> On 15/03/2022 9:22 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Seb!
>> 
>> The last time this came up on the mailing list
>> (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015014.html)
>> most people seemed to approve of the following mapping:
>> 
>> highway=service
>> 
>> service=driveway
>> 
>> driveway=pipestem
>> 
>> Dian
>> 
>> On 2022-03-15 20:16, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> Had a query regarding the mapping of driveways / shared  driveways as
>>> there seems to be quite a number of different approaches in the data.
>>> Below are three examples of similar ways that have different tags 
>>> used
>>> in each instance.
>>> 
>>> Highway=service
>>> Service= driveway
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818426144
>>> 
>>> Highway=Residential
>>> Service= driveway
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184844142#map=18/-38.00126/145.27585
>>> 
>>> Highway=residential
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429541974
>>> 
>>> Reading the OSM wiki, none of these ways are correctly mapped as they
>>> are all shared driveways that leads from a road. my understanding 
>>> that
>>> they need to be tagged as follows:
>>> 
>>> Highway=service
>>> Service= Pipestem
>>> 
>>> Would be interested in knowing your thoughts.
>>> 
>>> regards,
>>> 
>>> Sebastian
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
  _______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20220316/143f7d8b/attachment.htm>