Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net writes: With regard to apartment complexes, condo complexes, mobile home complexes, and gated single-family-home complexes, I usually tag: - The ways that cross the boundary line from public street into the complex are highway=service*** + service=driveway. These are also role=access in the relation. - Other roads completely internal to the complex are highway=service*** - If it is a gated community and/or there is a legal no-trespassing posting, additionally tag all roads and other features within the posted area as access=private. *** I have sometimes used highway=residential instead of highway=service when the roads are named, have actual postal addresses along them, and clearly up to public road standards (width, surface, maintenance, etc.). This would apply to some condo and most gated single-family-home complexes. I rarely draw driveways into businesses or, even more rarely, single-family home lots. If I do, they are highway=service + service=driveway, with access=private if gated or posted no-trespassing. This is an excellent description of more or less what I was trying to say (but didn't so well), and I think it would be a good addition to formal tagging guidelines. Yes, it effectively answers my question. For a private road I'll use highway=residential if the road is named and recognized by our county property appraiser, and I'll use highway=service otherwise. Additionally, I'll sprinkle access=private as appropriate. I don't understand what was meant by These are also role=access in the relation. What relation? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote: I don't understand what was meant by These are also role=access in the relation. What relation? A relation of type=site probably. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Saturday 21 November 2009 16:24:23 Anthony wrote: I don't understand what was meant by These are also role=access in the relation. What relation? A relation of type=site probably. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Site It would be good to update the Wiki for common and logical roles for this relation: access / entrance perimeter I didn't know whether to just add them to the Wiki because it's still in proposal stage, or if it was a good idea. Thanks, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
Hi, Anthony wrote: If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation. Care to elaborate? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
Hi, Anthony wrote: If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation. Care to elaborate? The elements which are within the perimeter can be calculated from the perimeter itself. We tend to explicitly tag whether something belongs to the site or not. You might, for example, have a bridge spanning the site or other kinds of transit routes that are not part of the site, but serve to travel through/across the site without entering it. A rule like the one you suggested would make that impossible. It's redundant to have the same information expressed twice, and doing so will only lead to conflicting data. The relation would express whether something is logically part of the site; the geometry would express whether something covers the same ground as the site. This is not the same information. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] shared driveways
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: We tend to explicitly tag whether something belongs to the site or not. That doesn't make it right. Anthony wrote: It's redundant to have the same information expressed twice, and doing so will only lead to conflicting data. The relation would express whether something is logically part of the site; the geometry would express whether something covers the same ground as the site. This is not the same information. How not? A bridge which goes over a site would be in a different layer, and wouldn't cover the same ground. A road which goes through the site, but is not considered part of the site, would split the site into two parts, and would make the perimeter a multipolygon. Note that all I said is If you can outline a perimeter, you don't need a relation. If you can't outline a perimeter, then you may need a relation. Having a perimeter and a relation is the problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
