Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> 2015-11-11 11:00 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann  >:
>
>> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test
>> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link)
>> contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify
>> reg. 2b)
>>
>
>
> I believe even tertiary links should be extremely rare. The roads
> typically having links are motorways, trunks and many of the primaries
> (depending on the region), some of the secondaries, rarely tertiaries (if
> ever, might also be seen as classification errors but who knows, maybe
> there is good reason in some areas for these).
>

So, how do you propose the very common situation of porkchops on tertiaries
be handled?  One such example is at 1st and Norfolk in Tulsa:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=36.15860=-95.97860#map=19/36.15860/-95.97860
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Gerd Petermann]

yes, a missing name should be no reason for a highway=residential_link.

During the last days I've reviewed the remaining highway=residential_link
roads, a few of them are quite special, so I fully understand that mappers
have the idea that residential might not be correct, esp. when they
believe that a residential road requires buildings close to it, which in my 
eyes 
is also not mandantory.

So, I see two possibilities:
1) change the wiki(s) and validators to make absolutely clear that
the _link suffix should not be used with other than the major roads which are 
now
documented or
2a) change the wiki(s) to tolerate suffix _link for all types of minor ways
(also footway, service etc) with the advice to use them 
for 
- roads that split at junctions
- shortcuts before junctions
(both with pictures)
- maybe more  ?
without forcing this suffix for those roads.
2b) tell data consumers, QA tools etc. to treat the roads
similar to those without the suffix.

pro 1): easy to do
contra 1): many users will not care about what is written in a wiki, so
edit wars are possible

pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test 
(if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link)
contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify 
reg. 2b)

So, my proposal:
Let's do 1) and I'll try to keep an eye on Taginfo to 
warn mappers when they use the _link suffix for 
a minor road as long as we don't implement some kind
of automatism for that.

Gerd


Von: Michał Brzozowski <www.ha...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 10:21
An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Joachim <nore...@freedom-x.de> wrote:
>  Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
> highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
> current situation.

This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a
name. Keep in mind this is specifically why addr:place was invented -
there are villages (in quite a few countries around Europe, for
instance) when streets have no names, yet they are still residential.
The QA software you use makes wrong assumptions.

Michał

___
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] highway=residential_link

[Tom Pfeifer]

Marco Antonio wrote on 2015-11-11 02:10:

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:

Can you provide an example of real situation where
highway=residential_link makes sense?


In my city (in South America) it is very common to have this type of roads

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086441
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240901
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240900
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230640681
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239951395
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358563357
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358563356
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202716638
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319956454
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230640660

This ways connect two residential roads, do not have names, and have a
direction. maybe some roads appear the prolongation of roads but no.



https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086441
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240901
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240900
look like residential roads to me, having a name or not.
Not even the construction style separates them from the
named residentails.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240898
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086443
are not necessary to split off the longer section, since
they have exactly the same attributes. This is unnecessay
fragmentation of ways.

The dual carriageway
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086428
is tagged residential. I would expect it to have some priority,
e.g. right-of-way against the smaller roads, in which case it
should be tagged highway=tertiary.

Finally I wonder if the single-building hospital
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2590640017
should be a clinic ?

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-11 11:00 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann :

> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test
> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link)
> contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify
> reg. 2b)
>


I believe even tertiary links should be extremely rare. The roads typically
having links are motorways, trunks and many of the primaries (depending on
the region), some of the secondaries, rarely tertiaries (if ever, might
also be seen as classification errors but who knows, maybe there is good
reason in some areas for these).

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-11 11:57 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson :

> So, how do you propose the very common situation of porkchops on
> tertiaries be handled?  One such example is at 1st and Norfolk in Tulsa:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=36.15860=-95.97860#map=19/36.15860/-95.97860
>
>


these could be tagged highway=residential (in this case, as they're part of
South Norfolk Avenue which is residential according to osm). What do you
gain by calling them tertiary_link?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100
Joachim  wrote:

> Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade junctions
> like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is usually tagged
> without a name because it connects two named roads and has none
> itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
> highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
> current situation.

False positive in QA tool is not a good reason to force everybody to
handle residential_link, service_link etc


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

The fact that tools don't currently support something is no reason to
oppose its introduction either. If it were, we would never be able to
change anything. 

On 2015-11-11 21:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100
> Joachim  wrote:
> 
>> Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade junctions
>> like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is usually tagged
>> without a name because it connects two named roads and has none
>> itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
>> highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
>> current situation.
> 
> False positive in QA tool is not a good reason to force everybody to
> handle residential_link, service_link etc
> 
> ___
> 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] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:36:22 +0100
Colin Smale  wrote:
 
> On 2015-11-11 21:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 
> 
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100
> > Joachim  wrote:
> > 
> >> Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade
> >> junctions like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is
> >> usually tagged without a name because it connects two named roads
> >> and has none itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools.
> >> Using highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in
> >> the current situation.
> > 
> > False positive in QA tool is not a good reason to force everybody to
> > handle residential_link, service_link etc
> > 
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>  
> The fact that tools don't currently support something is no reason to
> oppose its introduction either. If it were, we would never be able to
> change anything. 

Note that I am not claiming that "tools don't currently support
something" as reason to oppose introduction something.

I was claiming that false positive in a QA tool is not a good reason to
break nearly all existing data consumers using road network data.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[John Willis]

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Michał Brzozowski  wrote:
> 
> This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a
> name

There are no residential street names in all of Japan for tertiary roads and 
below (99.99%). There are a lot of numbered roads, but usually the web of 
residential that springs from them is unlabeled. 

So in some places, a named residential road (even an informal name) is the 
exception, not the rule. 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:29 +0100
Colin Smale  wrote:

>  
> 
> No, I can't think of any real examples at the moment, but that doesn't
> make them any less existable. And if they exist, then
> highway=residential_link is more logical than forcing
> highway=residential and adding link=yes or some other flag to
> distinguish them. 
> 
> On 2015-11-10 17:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 
> 
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100
> > Colin Smale  wrote:
> > 
> >> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a
> >> short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact
> >> that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that
> >> it is existable. Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it
> >> fits in the one we use for other analogous situations?
> > 
> > I encountered many short links between highway=residential, every
> > single one was clear highway=residential.
> > 
> > For example see
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24789911#map=17/50.06036/19.92942
> > 
> > Can you provide an example of real situation where
> > highway=residential_link makes sense?
>  

For me expecting everybody to start handling residential_link is for
worse than link=yes.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:00:41 +
Gerd Petermann <gpetermann_muenc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> yes, a missing name should be no reason for a
> highway=residential_link.
> 
> During the last days I've reviewed the remaining
> highway=residential_link roads, a few of them are quite special, so I
> fully understand that mappers have the idea that residential might
> not be correct, esp. when they believe that a residential road
> requires buildings close to it, which in my eyes is also not
> mandantory.
> 
> So, I see two possibilities:
> 1) change the wiki(s) and validators to make absolutely clear that
> the _link suffix should not be used with other than the major roads
> which are now documented or
> 2a) change the wiki(s) to tolerate suffix _link for all types of
> minor ways (also footway, service etc) with the advice to use them 
> for 
> - roads that split at junctions
> - shortcuts before junctions
> (both with pictures)
> - maybe more  ?
> without forcing this suffix for those roads.
> 2b) tell data consumers, QA tools etc. to treat the roads
> similar to those without the suffix.
> 
> pro 1): easy to do
> contra 1): many users will not care about what is written in a wiki,
> so edit wars are possible
> 
> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test 
> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link)
> contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify 
> reg. 2b)
> 
> So, my proposal:
> Let's do 1) and I'll try to keep an eye on Taginfo to 
> warn mappers when they use the _link suffix for 
> a minor road as long as we don't implement some kind
> of automatism for that.
> 
> Gerd
> 
> 
> Von: Michał Brzozowski <www.ha...@gmail.com>
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 10:21
> An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link
> 
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Joachim <nore...@freedom-x.de> wrote:
> >  Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
> > highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
> > current situation.
> 
> This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a
> name. Keep in mind this is specifically why addr:place was invented -
> there are villages (in quite a few countries around Europe, for
> instance) when streets have no names, yet they are still residential.
> The QA software you use makes wrong assumptions.
> 
> Michał

The big problem with 2a is that breaks nearly all data consumers of
road network data and increases tagging complexity without noticeable
benefits.

It reminds me about
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100
Colin Smale  wrote:

> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a
> short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact
> that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that
> it is existable. Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits
> in the one we use for other analogous situations? 

I encountered many short links between highway=residential, every
single one was clear highway=residential.

For example see
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24789911#map=17/50.06036/19.92942

Can you provide an example of real situation where
highway=residential_link makes sense?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Michał Brzozowski]

To me residential_link doesn't provide any meaningful distinction to
warrant a new highway tag. Maybe you misunderstood what link is about.
Links are for when collision-less means of joining or leaving high(er)
speed traffic are needed. From what I know about your residential_link
examples it's not really that, they are just shortcuts to make turns
less awkward. It's not standardized for a reason - they don't make
sense.

Michał

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:31:08 -0500
Bryan Housel  wrote:

> Please consider the one I just added today:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970
> 
> 
> 
> > Can you provide an example of real situation where
> > highway=residential_link makes sense?
> 

I would use just highway=residential for cases like this.

It is not a grade-separated junction, I see no slip roads or ramps.
Though wiki has "_link tags should be used for physical channelization
of turning traffic lanes at traffic signal junctions and in roundabout
designs that physically separate a specific turn from the main
roundabout." that seems to fit. What more there is
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link#Simple_at-grade_intersections

But in that case I would consider it reason to change wiki rather than
start using residential_link, service_link, cycleway_link etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Bryan Housel]

Please consider the one I just added today:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970 



> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

No, I can't think of any real examples at the moment, but that doesn't
make them any less existable. And if they exist, then
highway=residential_link is more logical than forcing
highway=residential and adding link=yes or some other flag to
distinguish them. 

On 2015-11-10 17:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 

> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100
> Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a
>> short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact
>> that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that
>> it is existable. Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits
>> in the one we use for other analogous situations?
> 
> I encountered many short links between highway=residential, every
> single one was clear highway=residential.
> 
> For example see
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24789911#map=17/50.06036/19.92942
> 
> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 17:19 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?
>



Maybe in situations like this:
https://www.google.it/maps/@41.8565439,12.4845837,3a,75y,156.19h,80.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sf54XmkoY54jisVhPubtUSw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379591766

I don't know what we would gain by not calling it either a service or a
residential road though...

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Tod Fitch]

That is exactly the type of place I’d consider using a highway=residential_link 
tag.

> On Nov 10, 2015, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Housel  wrote:
> 
> Please consider the one I just added today:
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970 
> 
> 
> 
>> Can you provide an example of real situation where
>> highway=residential_link makes sense?
> 

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Joachim]

Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade junctions
like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is usually tagged
without a name because it connects two named roads and has none
itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using
highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the
current situation.

Examples where unclassified_link and residential_link might fit:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286954889
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/193840995
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/155949371
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/286954889

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Tom Pfeifer]

Tod Fitch wrote on 2015-11-10 06:57:

If the two roads the connecting way links are tagged as residential I don’t see

> any other choice than to use residential_link.

I'm skeptical about highway=residential_link as it further fragments the usage 
of the
highway key. I prefer to consider highway=service for the lowest category of 
car-drivable
roads, not just at the end of a route.

It could be further specified as service=residential_link if you want.

> I don’t think that service works for that (and some routers only allow 
passage over
> a service way at the ends of a route so that would mess them up).

Which routers are this, and what is the reason for such decision? If the 
service road
has a sufficient penalty, it would only be preferred over a longer road if it 
provides
a significant shortcut.

> And tagging it
> with a higher classification (e.g. tertiary_link) makes no sense to me either.

Certainly not of course. However I even consider those short connections of dual
carriageways, that allow the occasional u-turn, or accessing a property on
the other side, as service roads and not as abc_link.



The only alternative would be to tag it as residential which seems to lose some
meaning to me as the ones I can think of are too short to have residences on 
them.


highway=service + service=residential_link

tom


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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short
link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a
very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable.
Why resort to a different tagging pattern if it fits in the one we use
for other analogous situations? 

//colin 

On 2015-11-10 13:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 

> 2015-11-10 13:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :
> 
>> highway=service + service=residential_link
> 
> or 
> highway=residential 
> + highway_link=yes
> 
> 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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Marco Antonio]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Can you provide an example of real situation where
> highway=residential_link makes sense?

In my city (in South America) it is very common to have this type of roads

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086441
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240901
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/223240900
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230640681
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/239951395
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358563357
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/358563356
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/202716638
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/319956454
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/230640660

This ways connect two residential roads, do not have names, and have a
direction. maybe some roads appear the prolongation of roads but no.

Abrazos,

Marco Antonio

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-11-10 13:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer :

>
> highway=service + service=residential_link


or
highway=residential
+ highway_link=yes

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Colin Smale]

 

Tom, 

To avoid key fragmentation? Really? Apparently creating is_link=yes is
OK, but using residential_link is wrong. People only cite things like
"key fragmentation" when it appears to support their case; it is not
really an active Basic Principle of OSM. If it was, there are probably
loads of other keys which should be attacked and deprecated as well, and
actual usage (however small) seems to trump any arguments about
correctness of the underlying tagging model including "key
fragmentation". 

//colin 

On 2015-11-10 14:05, Tom Pfeifer wrote: 

> Colin Smale wrote on 2015-11-10 13:54: 
> 
>> Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short link
>> between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a very rare
>> scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable.
> 
>> Why resort to a different tagging
>> pattern if it fits in the one we use for other analogous situations?
> 
> As said, to avoid key fragmentation, for this very rare species of ducks.
> amenity=poultry + poultry=rare_duck
> You can squeeze in more species hierarchy if you like.
> 
> Cartography involves an abstraction process, and that is supported by
> categorising the tagging schemes.
> 
> tom
> 
> ___
> 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] highway=residential_link

[Tom Pfeifer]

Colin Smale wrote on 2015-11-10 13:54:

Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short link

> between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a very rare
> scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable.

> Why resort to a different tagging

pattern if it fits in the one we use for other analogous situations?


As said, to avoid key fragmentation, for this very rare species of ducks.
amenity=poultry + poultry=rare_duck
You can squeeze in more species hierarchy if you like.

Cartography involves an abstraction process, and that is supported by
categorising the tagging schemes.

tom

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

[Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Andrew Guertin]

A question recently came up as to whether highway=residential_link is a 
meaningful tag or whether uses of it should be changed to some other 
value (like highway=residential or highway=service).


This tag has no description in the wiki, though it is analogous to the 
other highway=*_link types described on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link .


There are only 23 current uses of the tag, but many others were recently 
removed. By going through (by hand) the recent edits of an editor who 
removed them, I've come up with a list of 58 more objects that used it 
[1]. If anyone knows of a programmatic way of finding objects that 
previously used a tag, I'd be interested to know it.


Of those 81 current and recent uses that I worked with,
* They occurred in North America (36), South America (30), Europe (11), 
and Australia (4)
* 35 were added in 2015, 38 were added in 2014, and the remaining 8 were 
added in 2010-2013

* I count 33 unique users that added the tag
* 19 of the uses had a value for name="*", 62 did not have a name

* Of the 36 North American uses, I personally think 
highway=residential_link makes sense on 16 of them, while 12 should be a 
higher highway=*_link and 8 should not be a _link at all.



highway=residential_link is not currently rendered in 
openstreetmap-carto, and a request for adding it in February 2015 was 
declined 
(https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1280), due 
to low usage and being undocumented. That bug mentions that it is 
supported in various routing apps, and it WAS supported in the HOT map 
style until that support was removed recently.



So the question is, should uses of highway=residential_link be edited 
away, should they be left as-is (unless a different highway type is 
clearly better), or should the tag be approved and documented?



--Andrew





[1] Objects that previously used highway=residential_link. This list was 
generated by hand, and might have some mistakes. Also, not all of these 
necessarily should have used the tag.


275610032, 275610033, 275610026, 275610025, 275355353, 269193467, 
268796394, 262798921, 262715792, 262287021, 259433293, 259433291, 
259136210, 256321591, 256321612, 256256231, 82529183, 256250694, 
256250692, 255858772, 255734560, 255734548, 255734547, 255734546, 
255285030, 255282915, 255282916, 242373220, 240563513, 238260570, 
237128774, 222995985, 318225690, 219160095, 200773019, 191613798, 
183497432, 174739362, 174739436, 173790274, 152304285, 95348547, 
87908508, 87908510, 87908507, 83285340, 54356292, 54356293, 45812108, 
45812107, 39722340, 35248433, 148015236, 35242001, 35121698, 35121488, 
18820600, 6086632, 6107802,




On 11/09/2015 01:39 AM, GerdP wrote:

I think this should really be discussed in the tagging list.
I only know a discussion in Germany which came to the
conclusion that tags like unclassified_link, residential_link and
service_link make not much sense:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26083
The wiki doesn't mention those _link types as well, and my
understanding is that only major roads have a link (if link
in english means what we call "Abfahrt/ Auffahrt" in Germany,
I would describe it as a lane that allows to decrease/increase
speed.




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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

[Tod Fitch]

I am pretty sure that I am one of the mappers that have used residential_link 
as a highway value in cases where there was a separate way for making a right 
turn from one residential road to another.

If the two roads the connecting way links are tagged as residential I don’t see 
any other choice than to use residential_link. I don’t think that service works 
for that (and some routers only allow passage over a service way at the ends of 
a route so that would mess them up). And tagging it with a higher 
classification (e.g. tertiary_link) makes no sense to me either.

The only alternative would be to tag it as residential which seems to lose some 
meaning to me as the ones I can think of are too short to have residences on 
them.

-Tod
N76 on OSM

> On Nov 9, 2015, at 10:37 PM, Andrew Guertin  wrote:
> 
> A question recently came up as to whether highway=residential_link is a 
> meaningful tag or whether uses of it should be changed to some other value 
> (like highway=residential or highway=service).
> 
> This tag has no description in the wiki, though it is analogous to the other 
> highway=*_link types described on 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highway_link .
> 
> There are only 23 current uses of the tag, but many others were recently 
> removed. By going through (by hand) the recent edits of an editor who removed 
> them, I've come up with a list of 58 more objects that used it [1]. If anyone 
> knows of a programmatic way of finding objects that previously used a tag, 
> I'd be interested to know it.
> 
> Of those 81 current and recent uses that I worked with,
> * They occurred in North America (36), South America (30), Europe (11), and 
> Australia (4)
> * 35 were added in 2015, 38 were added in 2014, and the remaining 8 were 
> added in 2010-2013
> * I count 33 unique users that added the tag
> * 19 of the uses had a value for name="*", 62 did not have a name
> 
> * Of the 36 North American uses, I personally think highway=residential_link 
> makes sense on 16 of them, while 12 should be a higher highway=*_link and 8 
> should not be a _link at all.
> 
> 
> highway=residential_link is not currently rendered in openstreetmap-carto, 
> and a request for adding it in February 2015 was declined 
> (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1280), due to low 
> usage and being undocumented. That bug mentions that it is supported in 
> various routing apps, and it WAS supported in the HOT map style until that 
> support was removed recently.
> 
> 
> So the question is, should uses of highway=residential_link be edited away, 
> should they be left as-is (unless a different highway type is clearly 
> better), or should the tag be approved and documented?
> 
> 
> --Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Objects that previously used highway=residential_link. This list was 
> generated by hand, and might have some mistakes. Also, not all of these 
> necessarily should have used the tag.
> 
> 275610032, 275610033, 275610026, 275610025, 275355353, 269193467, 268796394, 
> 262798921, 262715792, 262287021, 259433293, 259433291, 259136210, 256321591, 
> 256321612, 256256231, 82529183, 256250694, 256250692, 255858772, 255734560, 
> 255734548, 255734547, 255734546, 255285030, 255282915, 255282916, 242373220, 
> 240563513, 238260570, 237128774, 222995985, 318225690, 219160095, 200773019, 
> 191613798, 183497432, 174739362, 174739436, 173790274, 152304285, 95348547, 
> 87908508, 87908510, 87908507, 83285340, 54356292, 54356293, 45812108, 
> 45812107, 39722340, 35248433, 148015236, 35242001, 35121698, 35121488, 
> 18820600, 6086632, 6107802,
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/09/2015 01:39 AM, GerdP wrote:
>> I think this should really be discussed in the tagging list.
>> I only know a discussion in Germany which came to the
>> conclusion that tags like unclassified_link, residential_link and
>> service_link make not much sense:
>> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=26083
>> The wiki doesn't mention those _link types as well, and my
>> understanding is that only major roads have a link (if link
>> in english means what we call "Abfahrt/ Auffahrt" in Germany,
>> I would describe it as a lane that allows to decrease/increase
>> speed.
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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