Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Paul Johnson  wrote:
>
> Paul and Kevin say I should fix them. Easily said, but there are are too many 
> and there are whole towns needing alignment, and endless roads connecting 
> them that don't remotely resemble reality. No data is better than wrong data.
>>
>>  Scrambling someone else's work for your own comfort is generally
> considered harmful.
>

Bad TIGER data: that of random correspondence to the air photos, should not
be confused with "someone else's work".
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Mike Thompson]

>> -If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area,
delete it.
>>
Any data that is reasonably accurate (i.e. possible to determine what on
the ground the data is supposed to represent) and is verifiable should not
be deleted. There might be some exceptions, such as personal information,
but driveways are not one of them.

>> So my plan is to change to hwy=service, service=driveway, delete private
unless posted
By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of
information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we
should not just delete the "private" tag.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2015-10-03 07:45, Mike Thompson wrote:


By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of
information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we
should not just delete the "private" tag.


How do people here feel about using access=destination on driveways that 
aren't posted? It more or less captures "who is allowed", if not "who 
owns the road". The tag is designed for streets posted with "no through 
traffic" signs, but that's pretty much what's been described in this thread.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> On 2015-10-03 07:45, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>>
>> By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of
>> information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we
>> should not just delete the "private" tag.
>>
>
> How do people here feel about using access=destination on driveways that
> aren't posted? It more or less captures "who is allowed", if not "who owns
> the road". The tag is designed for streets posted with "no through traffic"
> signs, but that's pretty much what's been described in this thread.


That would imply that it is a public driveway, but not one that allows
through traffic.  Not the right use of the tag.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2015-10-03 16:58, Greg Troxel wrote:


What's wrong with the private tag?  Is the only objection that it shows
up pink on the map?  That's a clue that the rendering is wrong, not the
tag.


I was asking more out of curiosity. Personally, I'm fine with the way 
access=private driveways are rendered, and tagging driveways off 
cul-de-sacs as access=private matches how I tag the parking lots of 
apartment complexes and corporate headquarters.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Greg Troxel]

Minh Nguyen  writes:

> On 2015-10-03 07:45, Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>> By removing access=private you would be removing a valuable piece of
>> information. Maybe the community can come up with a better tag, but we
>> should not just delete the "private" tag.
>
> How do people here feel about using access=destination on driveways
> that aren't posted? It more or less captures "who is allowed", if not
> "who owns the road". The tag is designed for streets posted with "no
> through traffic" signs, but that's pretty much what's been described
> in this thread.

That would be wrong.Driveways on private property are access=private
because essentially no one has a right of access.  access=yes is about
having a legal right of use, seaprately from being granted permission.
access=destination is about having a legal right of use, as long as one
is traveling to someplace reachable by the way.  Using a driveway to get
to a house or business when one is going there is normal, because
there's an implied permission to be at the destination.  But it's still
permission, not a legal right.

Arguably driveways in shopping malls and other busy place should be
access=permissive.  I tend to not tag those and to tag the parking lots
access=customers.  That is a little funny, becuase there is no right of
access, but that seems to be how we encode "permission is granted to
customers to park".


What's wrong with the private tag?  Is the only objection that it shows
up pink on the map?  That's a clue that the rendering is wrong, not the
tag.


pgpiUH2Af7sDN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Peter Dobratz]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Tom Bloom  wrote:
>
> -Living Streets. This is a distinct entity and not something decided by OSM. 
> They are decided by local administration, and OSM should tag them only after 
> that. Paul suggests that there could be townhouses at the end of rural lanes 
> in rural Oregon. They are farmhouses and the tag is wrong. Tho I do prefer 
> the wrong green tag to the wrong red tag :-).
>
> Almost everywhere that I see people using highway=living_street in the
United States, I think they should be really using highway=service and
service=driveway as you suggest.  I did live in Germany for a while and I
know exactly what is meant by the highway=living_street tag there,
especially because they have a special road sign for them. I have never
come across a living street in the United States.

Access:
Living streets are a type of residential street which are generally public.
Driveways generally have some sort of implied access restrictions.

Ownership:
Living streets are generally owned and maintained by the government.
Driveways are generally owned and maintained by the owner of the adjoining
buildings.

Speed:
Living streets are generally really slow (2-3 mph) because you expect
children to run out at any time.
Driveways are generally faster (10-15 mph), though the speed limit, if any,
is usually set by the property owner.  You expect pedestrians to at least
pause and look before entering the driveway.

Crosswalks:
Living streets don't have crosswalks because the whole area sort of acts
like a crosswalk because vehicles have to always watch for people and yield
to them.
Driveways, especially in larger apartment complexes, can have designated
crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians.

Peter
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 9:23 AM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> Summary, sort of. Thanks for all comments!
>
> There is no consensus, but what I've gleaned is that:
>
>
I don't know how you came to that conclusion without some fairly selective
reading, Tom.

> -If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area, delete 
> it.
>
> Paul and Kevin say I should fix them. Easily said, but there are are too many 
> and there are whole towns needing alignment, and endless roads connecting 
> them that don't remotely resemble reality. No data is better than wrong data.
>
>  Scrambling someone else's work for your own comfort is generally
considered harmful.

> -Regarding access=private. If there is a gate, it's private. If it is a lane 
> to a farmhouse, it may or may not be. There are any number of reasons. The 
> electric meter reader. FedEx. Someone who is lost. The vet. I think the 
> private tag should be removed, unless the lane is posted private. I've never 
> seen one in decades of biking country roads. Farmers love company. If there 
> is an address issue, it is normally the mail box at the main road, not at the 
> house.
>
> Even if it's not gated, it's still probably private, as the public has no
reasonable expectation to be there for any reasons other than visiting or
conducting business with the farmer.

> -Living Streets. This is a distinct entity and not something decided by OSM. 
> They are decided by local administration, and OSM should tag them only after 
> that. Paul suggests that there could be townhouses at the end of rural lanes 
> in rural Oregon. They are farmhouses and the tag is wrong. Tho I do prefer 
> the wrong green tag to the wrong red tag :-).
>
> No, I said that these are a common situation in urban America and used an
example of a townhouse complex I formerly lived in back in Wood Village as
an example.

> -Don't map for the renderer. Agreed, but it seems reasonable to try to make 
> the map look good. Mapnik is the face of OSM for most people. Paul again 
> suggests that I should make my own render. Why? I've spent countless hours 
> aligning rivers, roads, and rails with Mapnik as the guide. This makes the 
> map look better and may appeal more to prospective users.
>
> That's not a data issue, don't create data for the renderer.  If you don't
like how it looks, fix the renderer, don't game the data.

> Kevin says all real roads should be included, if tagged correctly. I agree.
>
> So my plan is to change to hwy=service, service=driveway, delete private 
> unless posted, delete living_street where inappropriate, and have a beer.
>
> Could you not?  And maybe actually listen to what people are saying?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Tom Bloom]

Summary, sort of. Thanks for all comments!

There is no consensus, but what I've gleaned is that:

-If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area, delete 
it. 

Paul and Kevin say I should fix them. Easily said, but there are are too many 
and there are whole towns needing alignment, and endless roads connecting them 
that don't remotely resemble reality. No data is better than wrong data. 

-Change to hwy=service, and service=driveway. I agree. 

-Regarding access=private. If there is a gate, it's private. If it is a lane to 
a farmhouse, it may or may not be. There are any number of reasons. The 
electric meter reader. FedEx. Someone who is lost. The vet. I think the private 
tag should be removed, unless the lane is posted private. I've never seen one 
in decades of biking country roads. Farmers love company. If there is an 
address issue, it is normally the mail box at the main road, not at the house. 

-Shared lane. If there is more than one house, the lane should be fixed. 

-Living Streets. This is a distinct entity and not something decided by OSM. 
They are decided by local administration, and OSM should tag them only after 
that. Paul suggests that there could be townhouses at the end of rural lanes in 
rural Oregon. They are farmhouses and the tag is wrong. Tho I do prefer the 
wrong green tag to the wrong red tag :-).

-Don't map for the renderer. Agreed, but it seems reasonable to try to make the 
map look good. Mapnik is the face of OSM for most people. Paul again suggests 
that I should make my own render. Why? I've spent countless hours aligning 
rivers, roads, and rails with Mapnik as the guide. This makes the map look 
better and may appeal more to prospective users. 

Kevin says all real roads should be included, if tagged correctly. I agree. 

So my plan is to change to hwy=service, service=driveway, delete private unless 
posted, delete living_street where inappropriate, and have a beer. 
  ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Greg Morgan]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Tom Bloom  wrote:
> Summary, sort of. Thanks for all comments!
>
> There is no consensus, but what I've gleaned is that:

I believe you are reading into what was said to prove your point.
>
> -If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area,
> delete it.

Long story short: you are going to delete this guys hard work because
you do not like how it is rendered.

Longer story long:  One of the best things about OSM is the level of
detail that can be achieve.  One of the best example areas in the US
on the top 100K meta tiles
http://fred.dev.openstreetmap.org/density/
 is in east coast.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?box=yes=-78.662109375,35.7821707032661,-78.6181640625,35.8178131586966#map=19/35.84268/-78.65369
Look at that beautiful detail!.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1938107848
There's even detail that's not rendered.

What's even more impressive about this area is that much of the map
detail was entered in after TIGER.  Yes someone entered it by hand.
So are you going to delete this area too just because you don't like
how it is renedered?  If other maps do not include features are you
going to delete that too?
I do not understand why you'd want to take the map density backwards
just because you do not like how it is rendered.


>
> Paul and Kevin say I should fix them. Easily said, but there are are too
> many and there are whole towns needing alignment, and endless roads
> connecting them that don't remotely resemble reality. No data is better than
> wrong data.
>
> -Change to hwy=service, and service=driveway. I agree.
>
> -Regarding access=private. If there is a gate, it's private. If it is a lane
> to a farmhouse, it may or may not be. There are any number of reasons. The
> electric meter reader. FedEx. Someone who is lost. The vet. I think the
> private tag should be removed, unless the lane is posted private. I've never
> seen one in decades of biking country roads. Farmers love company. If there
> is an address issue, it is normally the mail box at the main road, not at
> the house.
>
> -Shared lane. If there is more than one house, the lane should be fixed.
>
> -Living Streets. This is a distinct entity and not something decided by OSM.
> They are decided by local administration, and OSM should tag them only after
> that. Paul suggests that there could be townhouses at the end of rural lanes
> in rural Oregon. They are farmhouses and the tag is wrong. Tho I do prefer
> the wrong green tag to the wrong red tag :-).
>
> -Don't map for the renderer. Agreed, but it seems reasonable to try to make
> the map look good. Mapnik is the face of OSM for most people. Paul again
> suggests that I should make my own render. Why? I've spent countless hours
> aligning rivers, roads, and rails with Mapnik as the guide. This makes the
> map look better and may appeal more to prospective users.

So if we follow your logic these features are next on your list:
Google doesn't map bridges that means delete
Google doesn't map leisure=pitch or sports fields that means delete.
Google doesn't map leisure=playground that means delete.
Google doesn't map highway=crossing that means delete.
On and on it goes...
Hence your idea of what should be displayed on osm has major roads and
rivers that you have mapped.

Like dude!  You are part of a community.  There are other opinions of
what should be in the map database.  That's why we don't map for the
rendering.  Other people take that data and create their versions of
the map .  They will not be able to do that if you remove all the data
based on a formula where you do not see the another map that presents
the data or how a certain map looks.

Your view may explain what Pascal noted in his research: "Also, the
previously discussed pattern which depicts a contributor loss of
almost 70% over the years is again visible."
http://neis-one.org/2014/08/osm-activity-2014/

Why would any mapper want to contribute hours and hours of time to OSM
just to have someone with a wild hair delete all their work because
they don't like how it renders?  Put the beer down and sober up before
you wreck someone else's work!

Regards,
Greg

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Norman]

On 10/2/2015 7:23 AM, Tom Bloom wrote:

-If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area, delete 
it.

Paul and Kevin say I should fix them. Easily said, but there are are too many 
and there are whole towns needing alignment, and endless roads connecting them 
that don't remotely resemble reality. No data is better than wrong data.


You need to differentiate between driveways people have mapped, and 
unmodified TIGER.


Deleting the former is wrong. The latter is different, as in some areas 
the errors are greater than the distance between driveways, you can't 
tell what the TIGER data is supposed to be representing, and when 
correctly mapping, it's easier to delete them and draw new ways than 
figure out the TIGER ones.


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Greg Troxel]

Tom Bloom  writes:

> -If the driveway is long and wrong, or short and inside an urban area,
> delete it.

If it's wrong and TIGER, yes delete it.  If someone did it by hand,
message them.

Deleting driveways in urban areas is wrong, unless you are sure (meaning
you have walked on the ground) that the map data is incorrect.

> -Regarding access=private. If there is a gate, it's private. If it is
> a lane to a farmhouse, it may or may not be. There are any number of
> reasons. The electric meter reader. FedEx. Someone who is lost. The
> vet. I think the private tag should be removed, unless the lane is
> posted private. I've never seen one in decades of biking country
> roads. Farmers love company. If there is an address issue, it is
> normally the mail box at the main road, not at the house.

access=yes means that the public has a legal right to use the way.
access=private means there is no right for the public to use, but that
some people might have permission.   For a driveway to someone's house,
there is no notion that the public is welcome to use it (for reasons
other than visiting the owner).  So access=private is correct.

If you don't like the pink dots on the standard render, file a ticket
with openstreetmap-carto that access=private on driveways shouldn't be
noted because it is normal.


pgpagMAfreOgO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Minh Nguyen]

On 2015-09-30 08:34, Greg Morgan wrote:

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:

I run into this as well. If I don't see anything close to the way on
imagery I definitely have very little problem deleting them.

I also question the access=private tagging although not because of the
rendering. I mean technically it is correct I suppose but if you are
trying to route to an address at the end of a long driveway, the
router should tell you to go down the driveway. Tagging it as



If this really is true, then perhaps you should file a bug report.  If
I accurately map a residential gated community with access=private,
show the gates, then wouldn't that be more valuable to set what
expectations are required to get into the area.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16842943#map=18/33.78757/-111.98892


Toby is suggesting that service=driveway should imply access=destination 
unless otherwise specified. The wiki is full of statements that one tag 
implies another tag. For example, highway=motorway_link implies 
surface=paved. [1]


But you do have a point: a router could route over access=private and 
access=destination if there's no other possible route, yet avoid 
access=private otherwise (to avoid riding roughshod over a private drive 
that happens to make a good shortcut). The user interface would have to 
make clear that the route includes a private drive, similar to the toll 
road warnings that some routers give.


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=motorway_link


Who are these data consumers that you speak of?  If they are
freeloaders, I could careless about them.  One of shifts that I have
noticed over the years is that we appear to no longer care about what
mappers do or how we improve the ecosystem for mappers but I hear all
about data consumers.  The data consumers need to adapt to OSM and not
the other way around.


Data consumers are part of the OSM ecosystem; we don't map in a vacuum. 
All the renderers and routers available from the osm.org front page are 
data consumers, after all. For better or worse, renderers and routers 
already "adapt to OSM" by normalizing diverse tagging styles and 
preprocessing away common errors. (A highly opinionated data consumer 
would fail to support a good chunk of the dataset.) That's not to say 
the current crop of routers is unimpeachable, but I don't think they 
should be viewed in an adversarial light.


--
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Greg Morgan 
wrote:

> Who are these data consumers that you speak of?  If they are
> freeloaders, I could careless about them.  One of shifts that I have
> noticed over the years is that we appear to no longer care about what
> mappers do or how we improve the ecosystem for mappers but I hear all
> about data consumers.  The data consumers need to adapt to OSM and not
> the other way around.
>

Along these same lines, have I mentioned that it's time we stop tagging
routes on the underlying ways like they're the same congruent entity (eg,
lcn=yes and ref=* on member ways) and fully embrace route=road and
route=bicycle relations yet?
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>

When an area of tiger data has dozens of such driveways, which bear
basically random correspondence with air photos,
I'll delete them also.

They're not good data.  If someone wants to map driveways, fine, they can
start from scratch and be ahead.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[stevea]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Shawn K. Quinn 
<skqu...@rushpost.com> 
wrote:

In urban areas, it makes no sense to try to map residential driveways


It sounds cliché, but you ought to believe it:  I 
go to parties like that.  When I check my GPS, I 
like to see these in a map that works.  Say, at 
night.  So here I agree with Paul, I suppose we 
both go to parties like that.  Lots do.


As I see driveways (in Bing, for example), 
especially as I know the area and think "good to 
know that" I'll put them in our map.  Good to 
know that, especially as you can see that.  Whew, 
I thought I was going to have to walk the long 
way around the park, at night!  I am glad when I 
find these.  We have Civil Code 1008 (permission 
to pass on private property vs. is/is becoming 
right-of-way) in our state, so pay attention to 
the signs.  These become access= tags.


Tag what you see.  Tag what is.  This isn't 
difficult.  Maybe sometimes a little ambiguous or 
confusing, and so kind of discussion prone, but 
we have here to untangle things.  Doing so even 
works much of the time!


SteveA
California___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Greg Morgan]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Toby Murray  wrote:
> I run into this as well. If I don't see anything close to the way on
> imagery I definitely have very little problem deleting them.
>
> I also question the access=private tagging although not because of the
> rendering. I mean technically it is correct I suppose but if you are
> trying to route to an address at the end of a long driveway, the
> router should tell you to go down the driveway. Tagging it as


If this really is true, then perhaps you should file a bug report.  If
I accurately map a residential gated community with access=private,
show the gates, then wouldn't that be more valuable to set what
expectations are required to get into the area.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/16842943#map=18/33.78757/-111.98892

> access=private would probably prevent that from happening in most
> routers. I would say access=destination might be more accurate however
> really I think data consumers should know what highway=service and

Who are these data consumers that you speak of?  If they are
freeloaders, I could careless about them.  One of shifts that I have
noticed over the years is that we appear to no longer care about what
mappers do or how we improve the ecosystem for mappers but I hear all
about data consumers.  The data consumers need to adapt to OSM and not
the other way around.

> service=driveway together mean and appropriately handle it without an
> explicit access tag.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Martijn van Exel]

We could easily do a MapRoulette challenge to go through them
systematically?

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:25 PM Minh Nguyen 
wrote:

> Marc Gemis  writes:
>
> >
> >
> > They can be mapped, especially the long ones and tagged as
> highway=service, service=driveway, and typically access=private.I don't
> care
> for the appearance of the map, it's more important to connect houses that
> are further away from the main road via the proper driveway to allow
> navigation to the front door.
> > They have been mapped in several places around the world, also in places
> where there was no Tiger import.
>
> The Standard style omits service=driveway until z16, whereas ordinary
> highway=service shows up at z13. At z16, you're close enough to see any
> other micromapping that might take place around the house, like fences and
> backyard swimming pools. :-)
>
> --
> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Martijn van Exel]

Is this what we're after? http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/bIQ

(I chose Kansas to annoy Toby)

On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM Martijn van Exel 
wrote:

> We could easily do a MapRoulette challenge to go through them
> systematically?
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 9:25 PM Minh Nguyen 
> wrote:
>
>> Marc Gemis  writes:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > They can be mapped, especially the long ones and tagged as
>> highway=service, service=driveway, and typically access=private.I don't
>> care
>> for the appearance of the map, it's more important to connect houses that
>> are further away from the main road via the proper driveway to allow
>> navigation to the front door.
>> > They have been mapped in several places around the world, also in places
>> where there was no Tiger import.
>>
>> The Standard style omits service=driveway until z16, whereas ordinary
>> highway=service shows up at z13. At z16, you're close enough to see any
>> other micromapping that might take place around the house, like fences and
>> backyard swimming pools. :-)
>>
>> --
>> m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Hans De Kryger]

On Sep 28, 2015 11:57 AM, "Eric Ladner"  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 1:44 PM Hans De Kryger 
wrote:
>>
>> I've always hated when someone maps driveways in residential area's. But
that's just my opinion. Everyone has their opinion on what should and
should not be mapped. Driveways are only fine in urban area's. It makes
sense to me. But otherwise no.
>
> Did you mean "rural areas"?

Yes that's what i meant. Thanks
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Shawn K. Quinn 
wrote:

> In urban areas, it makes no sense to try to map residential driveways


I disagree.  There's  situations where this information is useful for
finding the best way to a property, particularly on narrow blocks where a
residence may have two frontages, one in front, one in rear (or alleyway
situations).  Now, it's not practical in many cases to just map everything
at once (boredom for one) so I tend to map driveways incidentally when I'm
detail mapping a property for other reasons.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[stevea]

TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They 
are tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with 
little red squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found 
includes them. Looking around the country, I notice some areas where 
they were removed, changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one 
area (near Rosebud, OR) where they were inexplicably changed to 
living_street, which they just aren't.


I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete 
all I encounter. Any ideas?


Don't delete them, fix them.  That's the OSM method.  I find 
driveways, when already entered, quite useful and helpful additional 
data.  Sometimes I'll enter them myself especially when they are long 
and give access to what is otherwise inaccessible or if they allow 
pedestrian easement to a trailhead or public land, (as they sometimes 
do) as was mentioned earlier.  This latter reason makes OSM superior 
to many other maps for certain data consumers (e.g. hikers). 
Driveways can also stand out as visually distinct access=private 
parts of the road network that are "there" (on the ground, in real 
life...) but "you can't use."  This only SEEMS like it isn't useful, 
but in some use cases, it is.


Let's be careful with wholesale deletion due to personal taste of 
certain data categories.  If it is truly wrong, fix it if possible. 
Delete it as a last resort, only when it is correct to do so.


SteveA
California

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Minh Nguyen]

Nate Wessel  writes:

> 
> 
> I delete plenty of TIGER driveways myself (mostly in the midwest,
> *highfive*!), but I wouldn't say that the accurate ones should be
> removed. If they can be identified as private driveways, they could
> more easily just not be rendered on a map with no loss of accurate
> data for people who might find that sort of thing useful. My general
> approach has been to leave the truly accurate ones untouched, but to
> delete anything who's deletion leaves the map more accurate. I just
> don't feel inclined to redraw them.
> I should specify, this is my (personal) policy only for untouched
> TIGER imports.

*Highfive!*

I'd only add that, while I've never found it a priority to map most
driveways, I do try to map every shared driveway I encounter. (I look for at
least two houses attached to the same driveway.) Shared driveways are the
rural/suburban functional equivalent to urban alleys, and some subdivisions
are chock full of them. I'd want routers to be able to direct their users a
bit beyond the mailbox in those cases. To me, shared driveways are less
tedious to map and more important for routing than aisles in parking lots.

-- 
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Minh Nguyen]

Marc Gemis  writes:

> 
> 
> They can be mapped, especially the long ones and tagged as
highway=service, service=driveway, and typically access=private.I don't care
for the appearance of the map, it's more important to connect houses that
are further away from the main road via the proper driveway to allow
navigation to the front door.
> They have been mapped in several places around the world, also in places
where there was no Tiger import.

The Standard style omits service=driveway until z16, whereas ordinary
highway=service shows up at z13. At z16, you're close enough to see any
other micromapping that might take place around the house, like fences and
backyard swimming pools. :-)

-- 
m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Eric Ladner]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:37 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Tom Bloom 
> wrote:
>
>> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong.
>>
> I believe TIGER only includes driveways over a certain length.
>

Alabama seems to have a lot of driveways. I couldn't find one shorter than
50m so that may have been the cutoff. In a population area that's pretty
dense and the driveways are frequent and well defined, they don't add a lot
of value.

I agree with other respondents that long country driveways are worth
keeping if tagged correctly (highway=service / service=driveway).
Especially when the house sits way back from the road and the way to get to
the house may not be obvious.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Kevin Broderick]

In rural parts of the northeast (particularly Vermont, New Hampshire, and
Maine) it's actually rather helpful to have driveways mapped. In many
cases, it's difficult to tell from the main road (with "main" being a
relative term) whether a traveled way is the limited-maintenance public
right-of-way or a private driveway (and many are privately maintained
driveways that also happen to be old roadways with associated public
right-of-way, but that's a can of worms for another time).

Personally, I'm not opposed to deleting them if it looks like the original
TIGER data was drawn by a blind monkey on crack, but if it's a reasonable
semblance of reality (even if only for someone who is accustomed to TIGER
and its foibles), having it in with reviewed:no is better than deleting it.

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
> tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red
> squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them.
> Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed,
> changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR)
> where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just
> aren't.
>
> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>
> (I mostly map in the Midwest)
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>


-- 
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Toby Murray]

I run into this as well. If I don't see anything close to the way on
imagery I definitely have very little problem deleting them.

I also question the access=private tagging although not because of the
rendering. I mean technically it is correct I suppose but if you are
trying to route to an address at the end of a long driveway, the
router should tell you to go down the driveway. Tagging it as
access=private would probably prevent that from happening in most
routers. I would say access=destination might be more accurate however
really I think data consumers should know what highway=service and
service=driveway together mean and appropriately handle it without an
explicit access tag.

Toby

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Tom Bloom  wrote:
> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
> tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red
> squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them. Looking
> around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed, changed to
> service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR) where they
> were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just aren't.
>
> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>
> (I mostly map in the Midwest)
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Nate Wessel]

I delete plenty of TIGER driveways myself (mostly in the midwest, 
*highfive*!), but I wouldn't say that the accurate ones should be 
removed. If they can be identified as private driveways, they could more 
easily just not be rendered on a map with no loss of accurate data for 
people who might find that sort of thing useful. My general approach has 
been to leave the truly accurate ones untouched, but to delete anything 
who's deletion leaves the map more accurate. I just don't feel inclined 
to redraw them.


I should specify, this is my (personal) policy only for untouched TIGER 
imports.


Cheers,
Nate

On 09/28/2015 01:33 AM, Tom Bloom wrote:
TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They 
are tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with 
little red squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found 
includes them. Looking around the country, I notice some areas where 
they were removed, changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one 
area (near Rosebud, OR) where they were inexplicably changed to 
living_street, which they just aren't.


I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all 
I encounter. Any ideas?


(I mostly map in the Midwest)


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Clifford Snow]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
> tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red
> squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them.
> Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed,
> changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR)
> where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just
> aren't.


When there is a house or building back from the road, I often add a
driveway. It makes it clear how to get to the building. For existing TIGER
ways (that actually exist) I would attempt to tag them correctly rather
than delete. In Western Washington they are often forest service roads that
may or may not still exist. Some become abandoned and are replanted or
overgrown.

Many of the forest service roads were classified as residential. Those need
to be fixed. We don't want a tourist to get lost in the mountains.

Clifford


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong.
>
I believe TIGER only includes driveways over a certain length.

They are tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with
> little red squiggles all over the place.
>
This is a rendering issue.


> No other map I've found includes them.
>
Driveways can be useful for at least two reasons.  One, their junction with
the public road serve as navigational aids, particularly in very rural
areas.  Two, they indicate how to access a residence, such as when
responding to an emergency or making a delivery (they were included in
TIGER to aid census workers accessing residences). In some cases,
particularly when the residence is set far back from the road, the best
method of access may not be obvious from the address alone.


>
>
> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong,
>
I don't oppose this.


> and would like to delete all I encounter.
>
I do oppose this, particularly if a mapper (not the original import) has
touched the way.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Natfoot]

I always add driveways to the map when there is more than one house or
building on said driveway.

Regards,

Nathan P
email: natf...@gmail.com

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:44 AM, Nate Wessel  wrote:

> I delete plenty of TIGER driveways myself (mostly in the midwest,
> *highfive*!), but I wouldn't say that the accurate ones should be removed.
> If they can be identified as private driveways, they could more easily just
> not be rendered on a map with no loss of accurate data for people who might
> find that sort of thing useful. My general approach has been to leave the
> truly accurate ones untouched, but to delete anything who's deletion leaves
> the map more accurate. I just don't feel inclined to redraw them.
>
> I should specify, this is my (personal) policy only for untouched TIGER
> imports.
>
> Cheers,
> Nate
>
>
> On 09/28/2015 01:33 AM, Tom Bloom wrote:
>
> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
> tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red
> squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them.
> Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed,
> changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR)
> where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just
> aren't.
>
> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>
> (I mostly map in the Midwest)
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing 
> listTalk-us@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Tod Fitch]

If the driveway is long enough, or if it is shared, I think it is a good idea 
to have them in the map (highway=service, service=driveway). In many areas that 
I’ve mapped it would be the only hope for someone to use OSM to navigate to a 
specific address. And on most map rendering the service roads don’t show up 
until you are zoomed in pretty far so is shouldn’t “spoil the map appearance” 
(and you shouldn’t be tagging for appearance anyway).

But do check by survey (or at least satellite imagery) as many of the unnamed 
Tiger roads don’t really seem to exist in my area at all. So blindly changing 
them to anything is not a good idea.

Cheers,
Tod

> On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:33 PM, Tom Bloom  wrote:
> 
> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are 
> tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red 
> squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them. Looking 
> around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed, changed to 
> service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR) where they were 
> inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just aren't. 
> 
> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I 
> encounter. Any ideas?
> 
> (I mostly map in the Midwest)
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Kevin Kenny]

On 09/28/2015 01:33 AM, Tom Bloom wrote:
TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They 
are tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with 
little red squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found 
includes them. Looking around the country, I notice some areas where 
they were removed, changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one 
area (near Rosebud, OR) where they were inexplicably changed to 
living_street, which they just aren't.


I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all 
I encounter. Any ideas?


(I mostly map in the Midwest)


Are they wrong? Fix them, or delete them. I often delete hallucinations 
that we got from TIGER. What seems to have happened around here is that 
the Census people drew fictitious roads up to people's "off the grid" 
cabins, or in one case someone's eyes crossed and he continued a line 
miles after the road ended, following first a walking trail and then an 
intermittent stream, both of which are on topographic maps. I've 
discovered that the out-and-out fictions are easy to spot because they 
usually consist of a single straight line segment striking willy-nilly 
across topographic features to the nearest road.


Are they right? If it's in the field, why shouldn't it be on the map?

Since most of the mapping that I do is afoot, mapping things that 
automobiles can't get to, I have no objection to driveways and tracks, 
particularly when they lead to trailhead parking!


The last thing that I recall mapping as 'driveway' had a bit that was 
'highway=service service=driveway access=private foot=yes'. Hikers have 
an easement to use it, and it bypasses a spot that otherwise requires 
getting your feet wet. I'd consider its deletion to be vandalism. I 
mapped the rest of the driveway from aerial images so as to avoid the 
anomaly of a disconnected bit of highway.


--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong.
>

So fix them.


> They are tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with
> little red squiggles all over the place.
>

Don't tag for the renderer, make your own renderer that doesn't include
highway=service; access=private.


> No other map I've found includes them. Looking around the country, I
> notice some areas where they were removed, changed to service roads, drawn
> de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR) where they were inexplicably
> changed to living_street, which they just aren't.
>

If you're talking about inside an apartment complex or a collection of
rowhouses, the low (often well under 15 MPH) speed limit and shared space
(parking limited to specific areas and not along the entire route; kids
playing and people walking having priority) nature of the roadway is
roughly equal to a living street.


> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>

Leave them tiger:reviewed=no or fix them if there's some semblence of them
on the map if at all possible.


> (I mostly map in the Midwest)
>

All the more reason to keep them, as these often are quite long and greatly
assist in locating the correct destination or starting point for a trip.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Mike N]

On 9/28/2015 1:33 AM, Tom Bloom wrote:

TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little
red squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them.
Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed,
changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR)
where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just
aren't.


  I change them to type 'driveway'  highway=service/service=driveway 
when it's clear that's what they are.   If they're in the wrong place 
with wrong geometry, then it's OK to delete them.


  I think driveways do belong in OSM - we're not necessarily like other 
maps.  If they're cluttering the main map, then it's a rendering issue 
that can be submitted on the bug tracker.  However they aren't the 
default tagging as imported from TIGER (highway=residential / possibly 
private).


> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all
> I encounter. Any ideas?

  I don't know of any automated solutions for this.   If they really 
follow a driveway, I'd rather see them changed to type driveway rather 
than a deletion.



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Marc Gemis]

They can be mapped, especially the long ones and tagged as highway=service,
service=driveway, and typically access=private.
I don't care for the appearance of the map, it's more important to connect
houses that are further away from the main road via the proper driveway to
allow navigation to the front door.
They have been mapped in several places around the world, also in places
where there was no Tiger import.


regards

m

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Tom Bloom  wrote:

> TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are
> tagged private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red
> squiggles all over the place. No other map I've found includes them.
> Looking around the country, I notice some areas where they were removed,
> changed to service roads, drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR)
> where they were inexplicably changed to living_street, which they just
> aren't.
>
> I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I
> encounter. Any ideas?
>
> (I mostly map in the Midwest)
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Should driveways be on OSM?

[Tom Bloom]

TIGER drew thousands of driveways that are often simply wrong. They are tagged 
private and in my opinion spoil the map appearance with little red squiggles 
all over the place. No other map I've found includes them. Looking around the 
country, I notice some areas where they were removed, changed to service roads, 
drawn de novo, and one area (near Rosebud, OR) where they were inexplicably 
changed to living_street, which they just aren't. 
I've been deleting them if wildly wrong, and would like to delete all I 
encounter. Any ideas?
(I mostly map in the Midwest) ___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us