[OSM-talk] Map Features tagging question

[Etienne]

On 7/19/06, Andy Robinson <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Etienne,
>
> Out of interest, are you distinguishing for residential areas between road
> types below secondary?
>
> Currently I am generally using:
> 1. unclassified - for boundary highways not part of housing estates


Unclassified for anything that isn't a Motorway,  A road or B road.  Unless
its residential.

2. residential - for highways within the unclassified "block"


Any unclassified road that is bordered on one or both sides by houses.  If a
country road has a row of say 5 or 10 houses somewhere then I would probably
tag that part as residential.


23. service - for those bits of road that link to things but don't really
> fit
> with anything else. I render these as per residential.


I've not used service for anything, but its a useful classification.

I have used highway=unsurfaced for roads that do not have tarmac, but are
used by vehicles and are more than a footway or bridlepath.

I also think there should be something that describes roads that are just
for access - that don't really go anywhere but lead to a farm or industrial
site, or go through a car park or something.  Not sure whether this is the
same as a service road though.

Etienne


Cheers
>
> Andy
>
> Andy Robinson
> Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Etienne [mailto:80n80n at gmail.com]
> >Sent: 19 July 2006 16:42
> >To: tgomas
> >Cc: Andy Robinson; talk at openstreetmap.org
> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Map Features tagging question
> >
> >I consider highway=residential to be a short-cut form of
> >highway=unclassified, abutters=residential.
> >
> >Probably about 80% of roads fall into this category so it is a very
> useful
> >and worthwhile short-cut.
> >
> >Etienne
> >
> >
> >On 7/19/06, tgomas <tgomas at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >       > >-----Original Message-----
> >       > >From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:nick at hogweed.org]
> >       > >
> >       > >On Wednesday 19 Jul 2006 10:15, you wrote:
> >       > >> I'd just tag those as "footway". That's what I've been doing
> for
> >all the
> >       > >> well trodden paths across land I turn up
> >       > >>
> >       > >
> >       > >Should this be the case even if they have horse rights?
> >       > >
> >       > >Nick
> >       > 2006/7/19, Andy Robinson < Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk>:
> >       > I don't see why not. The designation is more for establishing
> what
> >the
> >       > feature looks like when rendered. You are already tagging
> >additionally to
> >       > note what is permissive and what is not.
> >       >
> >       > Cheers
> >       >
> >       > Andy
> >       >
> >
> >       But the same feature may looks like a footway for you and like a
> >       bridleway for me. So what? Is the first one writing the "highway"
> tag
> >       considered as being true?
> >
> >       I think we mixed up several things in this tag like the size and
> the
> >       nature. I'm sure that separating all the characteristics of a
> feature
> >       in separate attributes will be too heavy to maintain, but perhaps
> is
> >       it possible to extract some things from the "highway" tag.
> >
> >       Another example is the "residential" case:
> >       I don't see any difference between "highway=minor,
> >       abutters=residential" and "highway=residential". It's confusing
> since
> >       some roads with tag "highway=secondary"   have too the
> >       "abutters=residential" tag.
> >
> >       regards,
> >       tGomas
> >
> >       _______________________________________________
> >       talk mailing list
> >       talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
> >       http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20060719/5ff9e45f/attachment.html>