[OSM-talk] Residential areas

[David Earl]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org]On Behalf Of
> matthew-osm at newtoncomputing.co.uk
> Sent: 31 October 2006 18:00
> To: SteveC
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Residential areas
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:40:26PM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> > * @ 31/10/06 04:14:48 PM 80n80n at gmail.com wrote:
> > > Tom
> > > I am now tagging streets as highway=unclassified instead of
> >
> > Is this not illogical? (eg, it _is_ classified) can we not keep
> > highway=residential but just drop the abutters?
>
> I agree.
>
> Generally residential roads are not classified (they are C-prefix
> roads, which...

I agree too, for a different reason: it is much simpler to just tag the
roads than create residential areas, so it is more likely to get done.

However, some roads need an equivalent of abutters which is not residential,
and while they possibly are unclassified roads, they want to be rendered
differently from either residential (grey stripe) or unclassified (no
stripe). This is why I proposed highway=urban, for a typical urban street
like a high street with a mixture of premises.

But even this doesn't really work all that well, as you can have
highway=primary High Streets, which need the abutters-like stripes
alongside. Maybe an 'abutters' tag on the way might be the way to do it,
which overrides the kind of road when rendering. We can still abolish
abutters on the segments (and get rid of segments too), but have the
convenience of a simple rendering.

There's also some residential roads which are more important than others.
But someone has a proposal in for a tag which provides a hierarchy like
this, which I think does the job there.

But at the moment it sounds like there's no consistency, so there's going to
be problems rendering stuff in the future.

David