Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Warin]

On 26/02/19 10:59, Sergio Manzi wrote:


+1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy 
(https://xkcd.com/927/)


BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread 
discussing if and how we should tag highways according to what are the 
official categories in the Italian Traffic Code (/Codice della 
Strada/) are.


There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification 
(/something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not 
mistaken/) instead of a "descriptive classification".


Is ther a UK page that has these official classifications? They maybe of 
use to fit others classifications to.


But other concerns are emerging too (/at least in my head!/), like the 
administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (/state, 
region, province, municipality, private/)



Use operator=* ???


and ad-hoc values as input for the router (/s//peed limits, traffic 
density, etc./




Rather than the density.. traffic speed could be more usefull? Example 
traffic_speed=20 @ 6:00-19:00 Mon-Fri , traffic_speed=15 @ 9:00-17:00 
Sat-Sun (yes, busier on the weekends!)/.

/If no traffic_speed then routers use the max_speed../

/


/*OR* a comprehensive "preference"value /).

Keep on going!

Cheers,

Sergio



On 2019-02-25 22:10, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:


I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its 
administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 
levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large 
lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.


So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a 
residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually 
walking on it.


So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world 
(remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))




It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to 
mind is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)


However, some of the stuff on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads 
I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - 
like trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Sergio Manzi]

I agree.

In Italy too there are so many different limits depending on "who you are" 
(/how fat your account is.../), in which bank you have your account and from 
which bank's ATM you are whitdrawning, per-account daily/monthly limits, etc.

And I really can't imagine _how one could know_ the ATM's absolute maximum 
whitdrawal limit (/unless you are a bank employee, maybe/)...

I see it hardly usable here...

Sergio


On 2019-02-25 11:44, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Any tagging proposal should make it very clear that it is the limit of
> the ATM. A tag that should not be used in Belgium.


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Sergio Manzi]

+1 here too, and a little bit of the same concerns expressed by Andy 
(https://xkcd.com/927/)

BTW, in the Italian mailing list there is currently a thread discussing if and 
how we should tag highways according to what are the official categories in the 
Italian Traffic Code (/Codice della Strada/) are.

There the concern is most about how to tag an official classification 
(/something that is implicit in the tag value in UK, if I'm not mistaken/) 
instead of a "descriptive classification".

But other concerns are emerging too (/at least in my head!/), like the 
administrative responsibility under which a given road falls (/state, region, 
province, municipality, private/) and ad-hoc values as input for the router 
(/s//peed limits, traffic density, etc. *OR* a comprehensive "preference"value  
/).

Keep on going!

Cheers,

Sergio



On 2019-02-25 22:10, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:
>>
>> I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative 
>> class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical 
>> characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its 
>> traffic characteristics.
>>
>> So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential 
>> area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.
>>
>> So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the 
>> highway=trunk issue ;-))
>>
>
> It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind is 
> https://xkcd.com/927/ :)
>
> However, some of the stuff on 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads I 
> definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like trying 
> to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Dykes

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 2/22/19 13:29, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> if you map a dyke, ID-editor recently gives a warning that a dyke ought to 
>> be a closed (circular) line.
> 
> I put this into an id ticket:
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5933

The bug has been fixed in ID and the fix will likely deployed when ID is
next updated on the OSM main web page.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Andy Townsend]

On 24/02/2019 14:25, djakk djakk wrote:


I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its 
administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 
levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, 
link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.


So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a 
residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually 
walking on it.


So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world 
(remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))




It's a noble aim, but unfortunately the first thing that springs to mind 
is https://xkcd.com/927/ :)


However, some of the stuff on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads 
I definitely agree with, and in some cases actually do do myself - like 
trying to capture the physical characteristics wherever relevant.


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 25. Feb 2019, at 10:52, Erkin Alp Güney  wrote:
> 
> road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
> autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
> A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
> road_level=.


this is already solved, if I understood correctly what you are after: 
highway=trunk/primary/... plus motorroad=yes

These roads aren’t considered motorways in Germany or Italy, hence it would 
feel odd to tag them with highway=motorway 

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - new tag departures=*

[egil]

4 days left of voting.


On 2019-02-17 14:49, Leif Rasmussen wrote:
> Voting is open for the tag departures, which states the list of
> departure times in a public transport route.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Public_transport_schedules/Departures
>
> Thanks, 
> Leif Rasmussen
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Fernando Trebien]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:27 AM djakk djakk  wrote:
> I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its administrative 
> class, its importance in the road network (at least 5 levels), its physical 
> characteristics (motorway-like, two large lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its 
> traffic characteristics.
>
> So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a residential 
> area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually walking on it.
>
> So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world (remember the 
> highway=trunk issue ;-))

+1

-- 
Fernando Trebien

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[djakk djakk]

Hello ! So I have written something on the wiki :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Djakk/new_tagging_scheme_for_roads

It is not definitive, feel free to add new ideas or to criticize ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:36, djakk djakk  a écrit :

> I meant “road for hgv” not “road for hybrid” ^^
>
> Julien “djakk”
>
>
> Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:35, djakk djakk  a
> écrit :
>
>> I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class :
>> footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;)
>>
>> Julien “djakk”
>>
>>
>> Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney 
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.
>>>
>>> road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
>>> autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
>>> A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
>>> road_level=.
>>>
>>> 25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hello !
>>> >
>>> > I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
>>> > administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
>>> > 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
>>> > lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.
>>> >
>>> > So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
>>> > residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
>>> > walking on it.
>>> >
>>> > So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
>>> > (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I could see that working!
>>> >
>>> > Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
>>> > highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
>>> > all the minor streets in a town.
>>> >
>>> > If you have a look
>>> > at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
>>> > pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
>>> > the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
>>> > tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
>>> > connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
>>> > (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
>>> > unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
>>> > CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>>> >
>>> > Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
>>> > would they stay as the current=service designation?
>>> >
>>> > Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
>>> > of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
>>> > "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
>>> > would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>>> >
>>> > Feasible?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks
>>> >
>>> > Graeme
>>> >
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] transaction parameters for ATMs

[Marc Gemis]

AFAIK, the limit in Belgium depends on the card. You can within
certain limits set by the issuer, change your limit. Furthermore,
there is a daily and weekly limit as well (see e.g.
https://www.kbc.be/particulieren/nl/product/betalen/betaalkaarten/bankkaarten/bankkaart.html
in Dutch).
Any tagging proposal should make it very clear that it is the limit of
the ATM. A tag that should not be used in Belgium.

Regarding fees, it depends on your account, the ATM you use, the brand
of the bank and the number of times you have used ATM's in a certain
period.

Banks and shops prefer that you pay with your debit or credit card in
the shop I think, that's why they make it more expensive to withdraw
money from an ATM.
More and more shops also offer payment via Smart Phones.

m.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 1:27 PM <0174  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> I'd say we stick to stuff that is explicitly signposted on the machine -
> if the machine says what the limit is or what the network is or what
> currencies it has, then map that, but don't map data gathered by
> interacting with the machine.
>
> one use case:
>
> I was recently in Nepal and the ATMs there have very low withdrawal limit (c. 
> 10,000 to 25,000 NPR, that is about 200 €) and always a fee. Withdrawing 
> larger sums of money i.e. for several weeks of trekking can get quite 
> expensive if one chooses an ATM with low limit.
> There are many ATMs in cities and towns, but since the limit is not written 
> on the ATM, the only was to find the good ones is to use them (and to risk 
> losing your card).
>
> That's one reason why I would suggest to not dismiss tagging with info taken 
> from interacting with the ATM. I suppose sometimes the max. amount can differ 
> based on the card issuer, but I believe we should reflect such cases in the 
> tagging scheme. Sometimes there is no other way and this information could 
> help a lot.
>
> <0174
>
>
> čt 14. 2. 2019 v 12:52 odesílatel Joseph Eisenberg 
>  napsal:
>>
>> Here in Indonesia the ATMs are universally limited to dispensing no more 
>> than 25 bills, and they only offer one type. So you can get 2,500,000 in one 
>> withdrawal if they dispense 100,000 Rupiah bills, or 125 if they 
>> dispense 50k bills.
>>
>> The size of bill dispensed is often shown on a sticker (at least for newer 
>> ATMs)
>>
>> (100,000 rupiah converts to about $7 US)
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:08 PM seirra blake  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> some providers already make it publicly available knowledge. for example in 
>>> the UK link ATM has an app, and you can use it to find nearby ATMs. most of 
>>> the things it tells you are pretty standard, but some things that may need 
>>> new tags are pin management services, audio assistance and £5 notes 
>>> (because otherwise you're limited to denominations of 10). I was thinking 
>>> with these tags included, link ATM may feel encouraged to import their data 
>>> and maintain it on OSM allowing them to save costs on their end and have a 
>>> more detailed map. when I tried proposing minimum denominations before on 
>>> here though it got shot down very fast.
>>>
>>> On 2/14/19 7:17 AM, Colin Smale wrote:
>>>
>>> Tagging min and max withdrawals on the ATM is asking for confusion. The 
>>> normal limits are set by the card issuer, and I can see many people 
>>> mistakenly putting their personal card limits into these tags on the ATM.
>>>
>>> More relevant here would be the denomination mix. ATMs have a fixed number 
>>> of canisters (maybe 2/3/4), each of which can hold a single type of note. 
>>> Which denominations are loaded depends on historical usage patterns. 
>>> Stocking low denomination notes might be good for user convenience, but bad 
>>> for the possibility of running out of money in a busy location. Knowing the 
>>> normal mix for a particular ATM, in particular the smallest denomination, 
>>> is useful for knowing which amounts can be dispensed, and which not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So instead of min_withdrawal on the ATM, I would suggest min_denomination.
>>>
>>> In the case of multi-currency ATMs there will need to be a 
>>> currency-specific variant, like min_denomination:EUR=20
>>>
>>> Problem is, it will probably require data from multiple transactions from 
>>> small to large to work out the mix and we need to keep mappers merging the 
>>> data from their experience, and not overwriting the valid data from a 
>>> previous ATM user, while recognising that the denomination mix can change, 
>>> even according to the days of the week (weekends might be different to 
>>> weekdays in city centres).
>>>
>>> On 2019-02-14 07:29, OSMDoudou wrote:
>>>
>>> The minimum can also differ.
>>>
>>> Some banks allow their young customers to withdraw small amounts, like 5 
>>> EUR, whereas adults and even young customers with cards from other banks 
>>> will not be allowed to withdraw less than 20 EUR.
>>>
>>> So, it may create confusion between mappers because what you see as options 
>>> on the 

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[djakk djakk]

I meant “road for hgv” not “road for hybrid” ^^

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 11:35, djakk djakk  a écrit :

> I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class :
> footway, cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;)
>
> Julien “djakk”
>
>
> Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney  a
> écrit :
>
>> Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.
>>
>> road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
>> autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
>> A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
>> road_level=.
>>
>> 25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hello !
>> >
>> > I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
>> > administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
>> > 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
>> > lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.
>> >
>> > So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
>> > residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
>> > walking on it.
>> >
>> > So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
>> > (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>> >
>> >
>> > I could see that working!
>> >
>> > Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
>> > highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
>> > all the minor streets in a town.
>> >
>> > If you have a look
>> > at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
>> > pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
>> > the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
>> > tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
>> > connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
>> > (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
>> > unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
>> > CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>> >
>> > Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
>> > would they stay as the current=service designation?
>> >
>> > Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
>> > of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
>> > "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
>> > would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>> >
>> > Feasible?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Graeme
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[djakk djakk]

I forgot to mention that there are several kind of road to class : footway,
cycleway, road for cars, road for hybrid, road for psv ;)

Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 10:55, Erkin Alp Güney  a
écrit :

> Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.
>
> road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
> autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
> A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
> road_level=.
>
> 25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hello !
> >
> > I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
> > administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
> > 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
> > lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics.
> >
> > So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
> > residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
> > walking on it.
> >
> > So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
> > (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
> >
> >
> > I could see that working!
> >
> > Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> > highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
> > all the minor streets in a town.
> >
> > If you have a look
> > at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
> > pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
> > the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
> > tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
> > connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
> > (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
> > unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
> > CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
> >
> > Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
> > would they stay as the current=service designation?
> >
> > Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
> > of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
> > "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
> > would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
> >
> > Feasible?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Graeme
> >
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Erkin Alp Güney]

Service roads would be highway=service as it is now.

road_level tag also solves non-primary motorway tagging (motorroad,
autovia, non-expressway freeway, Polish S-road, Russian limited access
A-road etc.). You would tag a non-primary motorway as highway=motorway
road_level=.

25.02.2019 00:20 tarihinde Graeme Fitzpatrick yazdı:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 at 00:27, djakk djakk  > wrote:
>
> Hello ! 
>
> I think we should decorrelate the attributes of a road : its
> administrative class, its importance in the road network (at least
> 5 levels), its physical characteristics (motorway-like, two large
> lanes, link=yes ...), possibly its traffic characteristics. 
>
> So we can tag a secondary motorway or a primary road through a
> residential area or an official motorway with pedestrians actually
> walking on it. 
>
> So that we’ll unify osm road classification through the world
> (remember the highway=trunk issue ;-))
>
>
> I could see that working!
>
> Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being
> all the minor streets in a town.
>
> If you have a look
> at https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-28.0643/153.4191 (& I'm
> pretty sure everywhere around the World will look fairly similar?),
> the pink Pacific Motorway (=motorway) would become =1; the orange /
> tan major arterial roads (=primary: 2; 3; 7; 40; 50) =2; yellow
> connecting roads (=secondary) =3; white roads through suburbs
> (=tertiary) =4; all the grey minor roads (=residential /
> unclassified): residential in the suburbs, commercial areas in the
> CBD, roads inside industrial areas etc =5.
>
> Would you need =6 for service roads (driveways, parking lanes etc), or
> would they stay as the current=service designation?
>
> Setting levels like this & rendering them this way, would also get rid
> of the problem of roads not being visible in remote areas because a
> "secondary" road won't render - even if it's only hard-packed dirt, it
> would still be the level 1 or 2 road in this area!
>
> Feasible?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[djakk djakk]

Yes it must be additional tags, so that existing tools that use
openstreetmap do not get lost :)

I’ll try to write this on my wiki’s page in the next days ...



Julien “djakk”


Le lun. 25 févr. 2019 à 00:30, Martin Koppenhoefer 
a écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:20, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
> >
> > Replace the existing highway= types (=motorway; =primary etc) with
> highway=1 to =5?, with 1 being the existing =motorway, down to 5 being all
> the minor streets in a town.
>
>
> rather than replacing the highway tags I would suggest to add tags for
> properties which we want to describe and „can“ not yet. It is very hard to
> often impossible to get back to individual properties from generalized
> information. The highway class is such a generalized tag, the categories
> summarize different properties of a road, focusing on the network. It
> served us quite well, but it doesn’t provide answers for specific
> legal/technical questions, like which is the road class according to local
> planning authorities, or which is the network class in the national system.
> These could be additional tags
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging