Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:22, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> or in other words if highway=primary always means a=x and b=y then all you
> would have to add to the scheme is c=z/w as a qualifier for
> highway=primary, no need for a completely new system
>

That's true.  But I was simplifying.  As well as the c=z/w it looked like
his scheme might also
have a=x/v and/or b=y/u.  But if it does boil down to a few qualifiers, add
them as new qualifiers,
don't replace the whole scheme.  I didn't bother trying to analyse his
scheme too closely,
but it didn't look like it would be a simple bolt-on.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Aug 2019, at 19:34, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> So
> you might say that highway=primary automatically becomes a=x + b=y + c=z
> but that implies that a highway=primary might actually be a=x + b=y + c=w.
> So it is necessary to remap.everything in order to check whether the primary
> highway has c=z or c=w.  It might not be urgent if there's no great practical
> difference between c=z and c=w, in which case there isn't much need for
> the new scheme.


or in other words if highway=primary always means a=x and b=y then all you 
would have to add to the scheme is c=z/w as a qualifier for highway=primary, no 
need for a completely new system 

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:27, Julien djakk 
wrote:

>
> The "old" highway tag can give default values to the 5 new tags, so it
> is not necessary to re-map everything :)
>

If it is a guaranteed 1:1 relationship then there is no point doing it.
Maybe if the
semantics became clearer (like migrating landuse=grass to landcover=grass)
but that doesn't appear to be the case.

But your scheme appears to offer much more details and more precision.  So
you might say that highway=primary automatically becomes a=x + b=y + c=z
but that implies that a highway=primary might actually be a=x + b=y + c=w.
So it is necessary to remap.everything in order to check whether the primary
highway has c=z or c=w.  It might not be urgent if there's no great
practical
difference between c=z and c=w, in which case there isn't much need for
the new scheme.

>
> Yes you are absolutely right : I need my own renderer to populate the
> new tags. I was thinking about putting anything (roads, summits,
> footways, towns, trees …) with importance = 1 to the lower zoom, etc.
> (Actually tag importance already exists, used for railways, has main
> values regional or national).
>

Then you not only need your own renderer, you need your own database.
Two of them, in fact.  One to hold a regularly-updated copy of the OSM
database and one holding your extra tags.  Because you'll probably
get a lot of opposition to the idea of you shoving your own tags into
the OSM database for no reason than that you like the idea even though
nobody else does.

People have managed to get their own tagging sub-schemes accepted: the
sea mark and historical objects tags come to mind.  A lot of their stuff
isn't
rendered by anything other than their own carto (some things are, but most
are not).  BUT those tags aren't applied to every object in the database.

Oh, and there's the problem that "importance" seems, at this stage, to be a
subjective value decided by you but applied to everything.  Even though for
many practical purposes renderers make their own decisions about what
to display at different zooms, you wish to impose your view on everything.

The more you try to justify this idea, the less feasible it seems.  The
first law
of holes comes to mind...

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Julien djakk]

Hello Paul !

The "old" highway tag can give default values to the 5 new tags, so it
is not necessary to re-map everything :)

Yes you are absolutely right : I need my own renderer to populate the
new tags. I was thinking about putting anything (roads, summits,
footways, towns, trees …) with importance = 1 to the lower zoom, etc.
(Actually tag importance already exists, used for railways, has main
values regional or national).


Julien "djakk"

Le sam. 10 août 2019 à 13:37, Paul Allen  a écrit :
>
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 11:42, Julien djakk  wrote:
>>
>>
>> Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O
>
>
> In an ideal OSM, tagging ANYTHING should be the same all over the world.  
> Sadly, people
> sometimes insist on fitting square pegs into round holes instead of coming up 
> with a new
> value or even a new key.  I shudder every time I see "In OUR country we use 
> this tag
> completely differently."  Sometimes this list is partly to blame for that - 
> the last time I
> can think of was about tagging polders, with some insisting that existing 
> tagging be
> used for a feature that isn't well-described by them.  But see below...
>
>> The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example
>> or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example :
>> residential, motorway), access, and importance (commuting and
>> long-distance trip). I think the highway tag should be split into
>> those 5 features : admin_level, abutters, access, commute_importance
>> and long_distance_importance (by experience, there should be 6 levels
>> for importance, from the cul-de-sac road to the main artery).
>
>
> Hindsight is 20-20. There's a famous saying in computer programming "Plan to 
> throw
> the first one away, you will anyway."  When you develop something new, you 
> learn
> along the way.  Often you find you've painted yourself into a corner and had 
> you
> known at the beginning what you know now you'd have done some things 
> differently.
> That's how it is with many older (and some newer) OSM tags.  Had we known 
> back then
> what we know now, some of our tags would look a lot different.
>
> With your proposed scheme there are going to be some people who think it's a
> good idea and others who will see all sorts of problems with it.  Eventually, 
> after
> a lot of discussion, all might agree on something vaguely similar to your idea
> (which would be a lot different to what we have now).  I doubt it, but it's 
> possible.
>
> Even if we come to an agreement, the problem is implementing it.  It isn't a 
> one-to-one
> mapping, far from it.  And that means EVERY road that has been mapped will 
> have to
> be re-examined in order to figure out how to tag it.  With a one-to-one 
> mapping a
> mass edit would be possible, but with this it's going to be a lot of work.  A 
> hell of
> a lot of work.  There are far too many POIs that are as-yet unmapped to 
> divert all
> our effort into retagging every highway in the world when what we already 
> have is,
> although not ideal, reasonably good.
>
> If you ever managed to get this flying pig off the ground (you won't) then 
> there's the
> problem of decorating the wings.  Even if you got full agreement from the 
> list, and
> a commitment by every mapper to remap every highway, you also have to convince
> the carto people to render it.  And the editor people to support it.
>
> There are only two ways you could make this proposal happen.  One is forking 
> OSM
> and convincing enough people to join you that you can remap every highway in 
> the
> world before you all die of old age.  The other is to invent a time machine, 
> go back in
> time and present good arguments to persuade people to invent better tagging.  
> I'm
> not sure, but I think you might have more chance of success if you go for the 
> time
> machine.
>
> What you have is another way of illustrating that one of the main purposes of 
> this list
> is to try to use our collective knowledge and experience to avoid introducing 
> tags
> with problems or we'll end up with less-than-ideal tags like our highway 
> tagging.
> OSM evolves and, like biological evolution, that means taking what we already 
> have
> and tinkering with it a little.  Big changes aren't possible, just minor 
> changes that
> result in a design that is far from perfect but is good enough.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 11:42, Julien djakk 
wrote:

>
> Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O
>

In an ideal OSM, tagging ANYTHING should be the same all over the world.
Sadly, people
sometimes insist on fitting square pegs into round holes instead of coming
up with a new
value or even a new key.  I shudder every time I see "In OUR country we use
this tag
completely differently."  Sometimes this list is partly to blame for that -
the last time I
can think of was about tagging polders, with some insisting that existing
tagging be
used for a feature that isn't well-described by them.  But see below...

The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example
> or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example :
> residential, motorway), access, and importance (commuting and
> long-distance trip). I think the highway tag should be split into
> those 5 features : admin_level, abutters, access, commute_importance
> and long_distance_importance (by experience, there should be 6 levels
> for importance, from the cul-de-sac road to the main artery).
>

Hindsight is 20-20. There's a famous saying in computer programming "Plan
to throw
the first one away, you will anyway."  When you develop something new, you
learn
along the way.  Often you find you've painted yourself into a corner and
had you
known at the beginning what you know now you'd have done some things
differently.
That's how it is with many older (and some newer) OSM tags.  Had we known
back then
what we know now, some of our tags would look a lot different.

With your proposed scheme there are going to be some people who think it's a
good idea and others who will see all sorts of problems with it.
Eventually, after
a lot of discussion, all might agree on something vaguely similar to your
idea
(which would be a lot different to what we have now).  I doubt it, but it's
possible.

Even if we come to an agreement, the problem is implementing it.  It isn't
a one-to-one
mapping, far from it.  And that means EVERY road that has been mapped will
have to
be re-examined in order to figure out how to tag it.  With a one-to-one
mapping a
mass edit would be possible, but with this it's going to be a lot of work.
A hell of
a lot of work.  There are far too many POIs that are as-yet unmapped to
divert all
our effort into retagging every highway in the world when what we already
have is,
although not ideal, reasonably good.

If you ever managed to get this flying pig off the ground (you won't) then
there's the
problem of decorating the wings.  Even if you got full agreement from the
list, and
a commitment by every mapper to remap every highway, you also have to
convince
the carto people to render it.  And the editor people to support it.

There are only two ways you could make this proposal happen.  One is
forking OSM
and convincing enough people to join you that you can remap every highway
in the
world before you all die of old age.  The other is to invent a time
machine, go back in
time and present good arguments to persuade people to invent better
tagging.  I'm
not sure, but I think you might have more chance of success if you go for
the time
machine.

What you have is another way of illustrating that one of the main purposes
of this list
is to try to use our collective knowledge and experience to avoid
introducing tags
with problems or we'll end up with less-than-ideal tags like our highway
tagging.
OSM evolves and, like biological evolution, that means taking what we
already have
and tinkering with it a little.  Big changes aren't possible, just minor
changes that
result in a design that is far from perfect but is good enough.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Julien djakk]

Hello !

I've been thinking about road hierarchy in OSM for a long time.

Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O

The highway tag shuffles administration grade (in England for example
or for motorways), physical characteristics / abutters (example :
residential, motorway), access, and importance (commuting and
long-distance trip). I think the highway tag should be split into
those 5 features : admin_level, abutters, access, commute_importance
and long_distance_importance (by experience, there should be 6 levels
for importance, from the cul-de-sac road to the main artery).

Importance tags could also apply to bicycle path and footways :D


Julien "djakk"

Le jeu. 8 août 2019 à 22:26, Kevin Kenny  a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:12 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just 
> > illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to 
> > regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the 
> > classification, but in the next town it would probably not work.
>
> We're stuck with the hierarchy, but it doesn't really work that well
> in most places other than the UK.
>
> In my area, there actually is a reasonable hierarchy that reflects the
> relative importance of routes:
>
> motorway - Interstate, US, and State highways that are dual
> carriageways with fully controlled access. (Some of the State Parkways
> fall in this category but are named and not numbered.)
>
> trunk - some few special cases where a multi-lane dual carriageway is
> only partially grade-separated from local traffic, or a 'super two'
> where a single-carriageway road is grade-separated from local traffic,
> with acceleration and deceleration ramps like a motorway.
>
> primary - my state designates most US Highways and some numbered state
> touring routes as primary
>
> secondary - other state touring routes, numbered and bannered.
>
> tertiary - state reference routes, or numbered and bannered county
> highways. State reference routes get an ´unsigned_ref=*´ since the
> only field-visible marks of the numbers is a roughly 20x20 cm sign
> showing the number and chaining. These markers have three four-digit
> rows rows and are next to impossible to read from a moving car. Many
> are collector roads that are prominently bannered, "TO NY 7", "TO US
> 20" etc.
>
> The lower classifications are harder. We have had many arguments about
> the boundaries, in rural areas, between 'unclassified', 'residential',
> 'service' and 'track'.  When you get into the North Woods, New York
> has some public highways that are Pretty Darned Bad - I'm pretty sure
> that I've tagged a "highway=track abandoned:highway=tertiary
> surface=compacted tracktype=grade4 smoothness=very_bad" and decided,
> "No, I'm not driving my Forester on this before scouting ahead." On
> that particular road, there were indicia that would support any of the
> five classes from 'tertiary' to 'track'.
>
> I've also put reference numbers for the highway system onto
> 'highway=footway' - for roads that have been washed out or destroyed
> in rock slides, where the bannering indicates a numbered route, the
> actual route is marked with 'detour' signs, but the condition is
> semi-permanent because there's never funding to rebuild the road.
> There's actually a blazed long-distance hiking trail that follows some
> of these sections, so 'footway' is appropriate, but the sections I
> have in mind are impassable to anything on wheels.
>
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:12 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just 
> illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to 
> regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the 
> classification, but in the next town it would probably not work.

We're stuck with the hierarchy, but it doesn't really work that well
in most places other than the UK.

In my area, there actually is a reasonable hierarchy that reflects the
relative importance of routes:

motorway - Interstate, US, and State highways that are dual
carriageways with fully controlled access. (Some of the State Parkways
fall in this category but are named and not numbered.)

trunk - some few special cases where a multi-lane dual carriageway is
only partially grade-separated from local traffic, or a 'super two'
where a single-carriageway road is grade-separated from local traffic,
with acceleration and deceleration ramps like a motorway.

primary - my state designates most US Highways and some numbered state
touring routes as primary

secondary - other state touring routes, numbered and bannered.

tertiary - state reference routes, or numbered and bannered county
highways. State reference routes get an ´unsigned_ref=*´ since the
only field-visible marks of the numbers is a roughly 20x20 cm sign
showing the number and chaining. These markers have three four-digit
rows rows and are next to impossible to read from a moving car. Many
are collector roads that are prominently bannered, "TO NY 7", "TO US
20" etc.

The lower classifications are harder. We have had many arguments about
the boundaries, in rural areas, between 'unclassified', 'residential',
'service' and 'track'.  When you get into the North Woods, New York
has some public highways that are Pretty Darned Bad - I'm pretty sure
that I've tagged a "highway=track abandoned:highway=tertiary
surface=compacted tracktype=grade4 smoothness=very_bad" and decided,
"No, I'm not driving my Forester on this before scouting ahead." On
that particular road, there were indicia that would support any of the
five classes from 'tertiary' to 'track'.

I've also put reference numbers for the highway system onto
'highway=footway' - for roads that have been washed out or destroyed
in rock slides, where the bannering indicates a numbered route, the
actual route is marked with 'detour' signs, but the condition is
semi-permanent because there's never funding to rebuild the road.
There's actually a blazed long-distance hiking trail that follows some
of these sections, so 'footway' is appropriate, but the sections I
have in mind are impassable to anything on wheels.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Peter Elderson]

We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just
illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to
regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the
classification, but in the next town it would probably not work.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 8 aug. 2019 om 13:43 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 12:18, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
>> To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now
>> tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now
>> tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the
>> village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are
>> separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes,
>> stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways.
>>
>
> Sounds sensible to me.  Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery,
> trees, etc. influence
> me.  If the main function is getting through the village then it's a
> through road even though
> it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have
> pavements.  There are
> a few houses in my area where the front door opens straight onto the road,
> which is an
> officially-designated tertiary.
>
>
>> If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would
>> use quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not.
>>
>
> "Quaternary" is a term used by me purely to make clear that "unclassified"
> arose from the UK
> through-road hierarchy of A roads (primary), B roads (secondary), C roads
> (tertiary) and
> U-for-unclassified roads (quaternary).  Unclassified doesn't mean, as the
> guy who recently
> edited the wiki thought, uncategorized.  It's not for roads you don't know
> the purpose of, it's the
> fourth level in the hierarchy with an unfortunate choice of name.  If you
> don't know what
> the road is for and can't decide, then use highway=road.
>
> So I wouldn't recommend using "quaternary."  I would be very happy if OSM
> switched to
> using quaternary instead of unclassified but, for various reasons, that is
> very unlikely to
> happen.  Ill-conceived values like "unclassified" which are historical
> accidents are one
> of the reasons this list exists.  Had this list existed back then we'd
> probably still be
> arguing whether to call the fourth level "unclassified" or "quaternary." :)
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 14:51, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> +1, historically (say pre-1960ies, I’m not old enough to tell from own
> experience and may be wrong) you wouldn’t have found pavements in German
> hamlets and villages (or likely anywhere in the countryside), and although
> most will have put them now, it really isn’t a criterion for the road
> importance.
>

Another factor is road widening.  Houses that may have had a (very) small
front garden may
have lost it when the road was widened to accommodate more traffic.

I've only lived here ten years, so I don't know if it was always this way
or the road was widened
when the one-way scheme was implemented.  Feidrfair is a major component of
the one-way
system around town.  All buses heading from the north to the "bus station"
at Finch Square
travel along it.  It's only a tertiary route now, but before the town
bypass was constructed
(again, before my time) it would have been a main artery for travel across
the town from
the surrounding areas.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08389=-4.65824#map=17/52.08389/-4.65824

Now look at the images.https://goo.gl/maps/AL5FAzNgPCMumHKM8  On the right
the pavement
is only wide enough for one person to walk (two if they're very close
friends), the houses have
no gardens.   A little further along https://goo.gl/maps/RYiuKbC6hKbFSVDG9
and even one
person will have to be careful to get past the sign post and lamp post.
Further along still
https://goo.gl/maps/nnumunY2txjhoqde8  and there's no pavement, just a
kerb.  The houses
have gardens but they're relatively new build (in an old style) so whatever
was there before them
probably stuck out that far, because a new build wouldn't have been allowed
to "steal"
pavement.  Ahead on the left you can see the large signage typical of a
through route.  As
streets in this town go it's not the most densely-packed with houses but
it's not far off.

It's a tertiary route now but I suspect that before the bypass was
constructed it was either a
secondary or a primary.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Aug 2019, at 13:41, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery, trees, etc. influence
> me.  If the main function is getting through the village then it's a through 
> road even though
> it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have 
> pavements. 


+1, historically (say pre-1960ies, I’m not old enough to tell from own 
experience and may be wrong) you wouldn’t have found pavements in German 
hamlets and villages (or likely anywhere in the countryside), and although most 
will have put them now, it really isn’t a criterion for the road importance.


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 12:18, Peter Elderson  wrote:

> To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now
> tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now
> tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the
> village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are
> separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes,
> stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways.
>

Sounds sensible to me.  Except I wouldn't let the pavements, greenery,
trees, etc. influence
me.  If the main function is getting through the village then it's a
through road even though
it has houses that are barely separated from the road and don't have
pavements.  There are
a few houses in my area where the front door opens straight onto the road,
which is an
officially-designated tertiary.


> If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would
> use quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not.
>

"Quaternary" is a term used by me purely to make clear that "unclassified"
arose from the UK
through-road hierarchy of A roads (primary), B roads (secondary), C roads
(tertiary) and
U-for-unclassified roads (quaternary).  Unclassified doesn't mean, as the
guy who recently
edited the wiki thought, uncategorized.  It's not for roads you don't know
the purpose of, it's the
fourth level in the hierarchy with an unfortunate choice of name.  If you
don't know what
the road is for and can't decide, then use highway=road.

So I wouldn't recommend using "quaternary."  I would be very happy if OSM
switched to
using quaternary instead of unclassified but, for various reasons, that is
very unlikely to
happen.  Ill-conceived values like "unclassified" which are historical
accidents are one
of the reasons this list exists.  Had this list existed back then we'd
probably still be
arguing whether to call the fourth level "unclassified" or "quaternary." :)

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Peter Elderson]

To be practical, I think I will retag the clearly residential roads now
tagged as 'unclassified' in my town, to 'residential'. Some roads are now
tagged as residential, but the main function is getting through the
village. These tend to give access to housing as well, but houses are
separated from the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes,
stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways.

If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would use
quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not.


Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 8 aug. 2019 om 12:14 schreef Paul Allen :

> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:18, Michael Tsang  wrote:
>
> If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving
>> experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction,
>> no
>> give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink.
>>
>> However, if that road is built like the other residential cul-de-sac with
>> a
>> lot of slowing and calming features like give ways, curves, or very
>> narrow
>> such that it become a choke point causing serious traffic congestion
>> every day,
>> I will think it as residential.
>>
>
> I think we're pretty much in agreement on this.  Of course, I live in the
> UK so through
> routes are officially designated and guesswork doesn't need to be
> applied.  So for me,
> it's simple: if it is an officially-designated through route then that's
> how it gets tagged,
> whether there are houses along it or not.  For others it may be harder if
> there are no
> official designations for through routes, then they have to use their
> judgement to see
> if it quacks like a through route.  In either case, if it's not a through
> route and has
> houses along it then it's residential (or, in some cases where the houses
> are far
> apart, a service road or even a track).
>
> There might be a case for some form of tagging that says "this is
> primary/seconday/
> tertiary/quaternary route with houses along it" but I think an area tagged
> with place=*
> makes that clear for human data consumers.  I suppose there are edge cases
> where
> a router could be faced with two alternative routes at the same level and
> with the
> same speed limits and the same distance between two given points but they
> have no
> way of knowing that one has houses along it but the other does not, but
> it's unlikely.
> Same distance is unlikely.  Same distance with same speed limits is even
> more
> unlikely, especially if one has houses and the other does not.
>
> What I don't see as sensible is tagging through routes as residential
> because there are
> some houses.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 03:18, Michael Tsang  wrote:

If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving
> experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction,
> no
> give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink.
>
> However, if that road is built like the other residential cul-de-sac with
> a
> lot of slowing and calming features like give ways, curves, or very narrow
> such that it become a choke point causing serious traffic congestion every
> day,
> I will think it as residential.
>

I think we're pretty much in agreement on this.  Of course, I live in the
UK so through
routes are officially designated and guesswork doesn't need to be applied.
So for me,
it's simple: if it is an officially-designated through route then that's
how it gets tagged,
whether there are houses along it or not.  For others it may be harder if
there are no
official designations for through routes, then they have to use their
judgement to see
if it quacks like a through route.  In either case, if it's not a through
route and has
houses along it then it's residential (or, in some cases where the houses
are far
apart, a service road or even a track).

There might be a case for some form of tagging that says "this is
primary/seconday/
tertiary/quaternary route with houses along it" but I think an area tagged
with place=*
makes that clear for human data consumers.  I suppose there are edge cases
where
a router could be faced with two alternative routes at the same level and
with the
same speed limits and the same distance between two given points but they
have no
way of knowing that one has houses along it but the other does not, but
it's unlikely.
Same distance is unlikely.  Same distance with same speed limits is even
more
unlikely, especially if one has houses and the other does not.

What I don't see as sensible is tagging through routes as residential
because there are
some houses.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Wednesday, 07 August 2019 19:26:57 HKT Paul Allen wrote:

> Standard carto gives secondary, and higher, roads their own colours and
> renders
> tertiary roads wider than residential roads.  This allows people to use
> that most
> primitive of routeing algorithms called "looking at the map."  Your scheme
> would
> break this whenever such a road passes through a town.  In my part of the
> world
> there are many "ribbon" villages along primary and secondary roads.  Perhaps
> no more than a dozen houses, possibly only one one side of the road.  By
> your
> logic the road ceases to be a primary road and becomes a residential road.
> A long stretch of red/pink road with a bleached bit where the village is.
>

If the "primary purpose" of the road is through traffic, and the "driving 
experience" is like on a major road (e.g. straight, fast, no obstruction, no 
give way, etc.), that part of the road is still red / pink.

However, if that road is built like the other residential cul-de-sac with a 
lot of slowing and calming features like give ways, curves, or very narrow 
such that it become a choke point causing serious traffic congestion every day, 
I will think it as residential.

Michael

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Jérôme Seigneuret]

*Also the presence of shops and pubs may in some context indicate the
principal road.  *

Depend of contexte because if this is a living_street I not sure that is a
good idea to set this as principal road for vehicule... This is why there
is a global contexte and others distinctives properties usages

Graph can't be the same for all type of users.

Default graph is for biggest usage. In general for standard vehicle...

I explain in french list why you don't cut a major (primary, secondary,
tertairy) road by a living_street because that have an impact on routing
graph...

So I Think it's necessary to explain why primary, secondary, tertiary is
also used because users don't respect the abstraction schema just because
there is a signalisation on the spot (for exemple living strret with 50m
size)

The explanation is "Opentreetmap store the real life, or store what I can
see"

I understand @Paul Allen message
The UK has four official, government-assigned classifications of through
roads: primary
(A roads), secondary (B roads), tertiary (C roads) and quaternary (U roads,
where U
unfortunately stands for "unclassified" which some mappers misinterpret as
meaning "uncategorized").  There are also motorways (level 0 in the 1-4
hierarchy)
and trunk roads (level 0.5 in the 1-4 hierarchy).

There is same official comportment in FR but ther is a ideology who would
like set it on city only base with the density of traffic, size of road
or/and speed or/and low
For me this is a spiderweb to redirect A > B with panel direction to
Country,Region city, Departement city, Major sub departemental city and
other
In big town there is same problem to redict trafic to  borough
,suburb
, quarter
,
When GPS didn't exist there is only traffic_signs and you set a road map
with place direction.

Road in neighbourhood is for me globaly residential exept in plot because
this is highway=service+service =alley or service=driveway


Cheers Jérôme


Le mer. 7 août 2019 à 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer  a
écrit :

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 7. Aug 2019, at 13:26, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > As always, there are compromises to be made.  But in much of the UK (and
> probably
> > much of elsewhere) mapping a road that is both a tertiary (or higher)
> route and which
> > also has houses along it as residential is not the best way of dealing
> with the
> > problem.
>
>
> yes, the network of the connection grid can be observed inside settlements
> as well. In the typical case you can clearly observe a road hierarchy,
> examples for distinctive properties may be: right of way on crossings,
> signage, traffic lights, speed limits, road width/number of lanes, presence
> of through traffic, etc.
>
> Also the presence of shops and pubs may in some context indicate the
> principal road.
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Cordialement,
Jérôme Seigneuret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2019, at 13:26, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> As always, there are compromises to be made.  But in much of the UK (and 
> probably
> much of elsewhere) mapping a road that is both a tertiary (or higher) route 
> and which
> also has houses along it as residential is not the best way of dealing with 
> the
> problem.


yes, the network of the connection grid can be observed inside settlements as 
well. In the typical case you can clearly observe a road hierarchy, examples 
for distinctive properties may be: right of way on crossings, signage, traffic 
lights, speed limits, road width/number of lanes, presence of through traffic, 
etc.

Also the presence of shops and pubs may in some context indicate the principal 
road. 

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 23:06:47 HKT Paul Allen wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> > residential may not be used for through traffic?
> 
> Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs.  Dead ends.  Not classed as through
> roads because
> they don't lead anywhere except the houses that are on them.  Others can be
> used as routes
> from A to B but there are other routes that are shorter/wider/faster or
> some combination of those.
> And then there are tertiary (or higher) roads which lead from A to B but
> which also have houses
> along them.
> 
> A cul-de-sac, which many residential roads are, can never be used by
> through traffic.  Roads
> used by through traffic can have houses on them.  It is useful to make a
> distinction in a way
> that makes sense.

In Hong Kong, there are two major roads Pok Fu Lam Road (uphill, primary) and 
Victoria Road (downhill, secondary), which serve as major thoroughfare between 
districts, which the former has much higher importance. There are two roads 
connecting them in Pok Fu Lam, one is called Sassoon Road, and another is in 
form of Y-shape with a loop at the centre called Bisney Road / Consort Rise.

Sassoon Road is suitable for medium-sized vehicles to pass through and is the 
preferred road for traffic going up / down the hill, which is mapped as 
tertiary 
(because it isn't used for major traffic between districts, but mainly used for 
accessing local destinations inside Pok Fu Lam, we don't have an official 
system 
lower than trunk). There is a university along the road.

Bisney Road / Consort Rise passes through a quiet neighbourhood which is steep 
and curved, making it unsuitable for any medium / large vehicles to pass with 
a legal weight limit restricted to light vehicles. Therefore it is mapped as 
residential. The primary purpose of that road is to access the neighbourhood, 
however some vehicles (including myself) also use it as a thoroughfare on a 
light vehicle (especially a motorcycle) because it is shorter and has less 
traffic than Sassoon Road, even through the speed is much slower as the road is 
steep and curved.

The ability of through traffic passing a road does not depend on the 
classification. As long as it is the shortest / widest / fastest path 
connecting major roads, it will have through traffic even the driving 
experience 
is the same as driving into a cul-de-sac in a neighbourhood. Therefore we 
don't need to distinguish them in the tagging. The residential / unclassified 
difference should be reflected in the driving experience (you expect houses and 
residents on residential road which you should be careful not to disturb them, 
but not on an unclassified road).

Michael

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 16:46:26 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
> 
>   Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
> 
>   But what about service/track?
> 

They are not public roads - service is like an access for some specific 
purpose, while track is something more like "forest track" which are not roads 
but passable by vehicles. This definition does not deal with pavedness or not.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Michael Tsang]

On Sunday, 04 August 2019 15:41:09 HKT Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified
> 
>   Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined
> for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what
> I understand it was always in the group of primary/secondary/tertiary
> just the one which does not have an official classification - thus
> "unclassified".

For me residential and unclassified are the same level - the former is used for 
residential area, the latter is used for non-residential area. Even a road 
which pass through others' backyards and used for through traffic is still 
residential as long as it is used mostly by residents.

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



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 15:16, Philip Barnes  wrote:

[Back alleys]

> They have these where I used to visit my grandmother in South Wales,


All over the UK, I suspect.  If you're old enough to remember the early
days (late 60s/
early 70s) of "Coronation Street" the houses on the street had a back alley
and most
still had outside toilets although many had upgraded to indoor sanitation.


> called Gullies locally (excuse spelling, have never seen it written)
>

I'd not even heard it.  And if I had I'd have spelled it completely
differently.   Because,
after some digging, I see they're called gulleys but pronounced "goleys."
In fact, that digging
shows these things are all over the UK, with different names, although we
can only
conjecture their original purpose.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/10/the-end-of-the-alley-or-whatever-you-call-it


> As you say, people use them to access garages and back in the 70s and 80s
> a tipper lorry would come around every few weeks and  tip a pile of coal
> outside the gates of miners and retired miners.
>

Ah, I'd forgotten about coal deliveries.  Along with an outside toilet
there was often a coal
house, and you wouldn't want people carrying coal or night soil through
your house to/from
those.  Coal because it might spill.  Night soil because of the smell,
whether it spilled or
not.

That made the garages inaccessible for a few hours until the coal was moved.
>

Garages were an afterthought, though.  You'd have moved the coal into the
coal house long
before morning when your outhouse was emptied.

I'm not saying that was the original purpose of all the alleys we map, but
if the houses are
of a certain age, in a slightly-more gentrified part of a town, that was
probably why they were
there.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 6 August 2019, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:31, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
> 
> I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a
> > settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures
> > here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley
> >
> 
> I agree.  But they may not have names.  The one in my town are all dead
> ends.  So not used
> by pedestrians as short cuts from A to B, therefore no need to name them.
> They might be
> used by the residents, or those visiting the residents, and (of course) the
> night soil man
> and possibly other tradespeople, but not thoroughfares.
> 
> These are very typical for historic centres (often much older than late
> > 19th century).
> >
> 
> Again, I suspect their original purpose was for the night soil man and
> tradespeople (even
> 60 years ago it was expected that tradespeople, charity collectors, etc.
> would use the back
> door of a house even if there were no back alley).  And I also suspect that
> the ones with
> names were short cuts of one sort or another.  Because "Night Soil Alley"
> is not a name
> anyone would want to have associated with their property, but a short cut
> would get a
> name, sooner or later.
> 
They have these where I used to visit my grandmother in South Wales, called 
Gullies locally (excuse spelling, have never seen it written)

As you say, people use them to access garages and back in the 70s and 80s a 
tipper lorry would come around every few weeks and  tip a pile of coal outside 
the gates of miners and retired miners.

That made the garages inaccessible for a few hours until the coal was moved.

Phil (trigpoint)

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 13:31, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a
> settlement would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures
> here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley
>

I agree.  But they may not have names.  The one in my town are all dead
ends.  So not used
by pedestrians as short cuts from A to B, therefore no need to name them.
They might be
used by the residents, or those visiting the residents, and (of course) the
night soil man
and possibly other tradespeople, but not thoroughfares.

These are very typical for historic centres (often much older than late
> 19th century).
>

Again, I suspect their original purpose was for the night soil man and
tradespeople (even
60 years ago it was expected that tradespeople, charity collectors, etc.
would use the back
door of a house even if there were no back alley).  And I also suspect that
the ones with
names were short cuts of one sort or another.  Because "Night Soil Alley"
is not a name
anyone would want to have associated with their property, but a short cut
would get a
name, sooner or later.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 6. Aug 2019, at 11:15, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Typically?  In some parts of the world, maybe.  In others, not so much.  Of 
> the three I
> can think of in my town, none have names.
> 
> Side-note.  Those three alleys give access to the rear gardens of the houses 
> either
> side of the alleys.  Most have a garage at the rear accessed via the alley 
> (with no room
> at the front of the building for a garage).  Given the age of most of the 
> buildings they serve,
> the late 1800s, none of those alleys would have been intended to provide 
> access to
> garages. 


I may have been misguided here, but to me any narrower pathway in a settlement 
would be suitable for the alley tag. Like those in the pictures here: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley

These are very typical for historic centres (often much older than late 19th 
century).

Cheers Martin 

(not speaking about north american alleys)___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 at 08:49, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
> > On 5. Aug 2019, at 07:06, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> >
> > Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any?
>
> alleys
>

Typically?  In some parts of the world, maybe.  In others, not so much.  Of
the three I
can think of in my town, none have names.

Side-note.  Those three alleys give access to the rear gardens of the
houses either
side of the alleys.  Most have a garage at the rear accessed via the alley
(with no room
at the front of the building for a garage).  Given the age of most of the
buildings they serve,
the late 1800s, none of those alleys would have been intended to provide
access to
garages.  I surmise that the original purpose of the alleys was for what
was known as
the "night soil man" who emptied the outside toilets that were the pinnacle
of
sanitation at the time.  If you were well-off you could afford a house with
a back alley
so that the night soil man didn't have to carry a bucket of unpleasantness
through your
house.  Given the sensibilities of the time, those alleys would barely be
acknowledged, let alone named.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Aug 2019, at 07:06, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any?


alleys

Cheers Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Peter Elderson]

I agree, but it also says don't expect it to be rendered or routed, it's a
fixme error.  Mappers have used and will use 'unclassified' because they
want rendering and routing without bothering about the classification.

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 5 aug. 2019 om 09:56 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it
> > means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:
> >
> > A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
> No. The tag highway=road says that the class is unknown.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[brad]

R - unclassified
A - unclassified
B - track
C - residential



On 8/4/19 3:46 AM, Tomas Straupis wrote:

All right, let's make it more detailed and more extended.

R
R
RAAA
R  A
R
R
R
R

Now A and C are ways leading into the inner territory of residential
building(s). But A has another important road B getting out of it, and
C does not. Which means A has through traffic while C does not. But
all of them are very minor ways visible as two tracks on the ground.
Way C is used say twice in a week.

Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
want to leave B.

Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
generalisation operation such as road pruning?

___
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] Road hierarchy

[Dave Swarthout]

>Different places, different practices. In the rural areas near here, a
great many private service ways have names, so that the houses on them will
have street >addresses for emergency services to find. Often the name is
something like 'Smith Road' because it goes into the Smith family farm.
It's just a highway=service >or highway=track access=private, but is named
and signed for navigation.

That same practice is fairly common in Alaska as well. Tiger often classes
these as residentials but like all Tiger data, it must be verified before
you can believe it LOL


On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 11:11 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:07 AM Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>
>> Correct - But from my experience its either a service or it has
>> a name. At least in the part of Germany where i map.
>>
>> There are of course the 1% of exceptions where Bayer or BASF names roads
>> on their facility property. But the typical parking aisle or
>> access to a fuel station should not carry a name.
>>
>>
> Different places, different practices. In the rural areas near here, a
> great many private service ways have names, so that the houses on them will
> have street addresses for emergency services to find. Often the name is
> something like 'Smith Road' because it goes into the Smith family farm.
> It's just a highway=service or highway=track access=private, but is named
> and signed for navigation.
>
> I agree that a parking aisle or urban driveway is unlikely to have a name.
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:07 AM Florian Lohoff  wrote:

> Correct - But from my experience its either a service or it has
> a name. At least in the part of Germany where i map.
>
> There are of course the 1% of exceptions where Bayer or BASF names roads
> on their facility property. But the typical parking aisle or
> access to a fuel station should not carry a name.
>
>
Different places, different practices. In the rural areas near here, a
great many private service ways have names, so that the houses on them will
have street addresses for emergency services to find. Often the name is
something like 'Smith Road' because it goes into the Smith family farm.
It's just a highway=service or highway=track access=private, but is named
and signed for navigation.

I agree that a parking aisle or urban driveway is unlikely to have a name.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 06:26, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
>


> > I just reverted it.  And added some clarification (some may disagree and
> > think I've murkified it)
> > based on why I think those words were removed back in February.  Feel
> free
> > to fix my fixes.
>
> Your statement added:
>
> "but which are not normally used as through routes (which would
> usually be
> classified highways or unclassified highways)."
>

Indeed it did.

>
> I disagree on this. I dont think we have consensus that residential
> are not for through traffic. Our routers/navigators dont treat it like
> that. And if we assume so there is a HUGE difference in unclassified and
> residential we dont actually yet have.
>

If I look at my town, there are several roads which are
officially-designated tertiary routes
for through traffic which have houses all along them.  Because they are
officially-designated
tertiary routes it is sensible to mark them as such and not as residential
roads.  Other
roads in town with houses along them are not officially-designated tertiary
routes.
Sometimes, such as road re-surfacing or the annual fair, an
officially-designated tertiary
route may be closed off and traffic diverted through the residential
roads.  But those
diversions are longer routes and involve three extra right-angle (or nearly
so) turns.

>
> And its not the claim which has been removed in February.
>
> "but which are not a classified or unclassified highways."
>
> This is a statement which unclassified carries aswell:
>

Did you look at the comment he/she left about the reason for the change?
That person
interpreted "unclassified" in its common sense and not in the UK road
system/OSM
sense.  To that person, "residential" is a classification and therefore
cannot be
unclassified.  In OSM "unclassified" means a quaternary route which many of
us
interpret as not being a residential road.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[ael]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 05:53:10PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it
> > means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:
> > 
> > A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
> No. The tag highway=road says that the class is unknown.
 +1
 ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Warin]

I would recommend that the wiki reference the UK road classification scheme so 
those who want to can delve into the classification scheme OSM uses.

Example: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/315783/road-classification-guidance.pdf

"Unclassified Road  –fourth and lowest class of classified road in the 
classification system.
If not stated otherwise, roads are assumed to be unclassified.
No number is officially associated with an unclassified road, although the local 
highway authority is entitled to develop its own methods to identify it."

Local country note on translating OSMs road classification scheme should go on 
a local guide - not on the main wiki.



On 05/08/19 15:25, Florian Lohoff wrote:

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:
I just reverted it.  And added some clarification (some may disagree and
think I've murkified it)
based on why I think those words were removed back in February.  Feel free
to fix my fixes.

Your statement added:

"but which are not normally used as through routes (which would usually 
be
classified highways or unclassified highways)."

I disagree on this. I dont think we have consensus that residential
are not for through traffic. Our routers/navigators dont treat it like
that. And if we assume so there is a HUGE difference in unclassified and
residential we dont actually yet have.

And its not the claim which has been removed in February.

"but which are not a classified or unclassified highways."

This is a statement which unclassified carries aswell:

In short, when other highway=* tags are more applicable, use those
instead. If a public road is of lesser importance than what's called a
highway=tertiary in your region, and is also not a highway=residential, 
a
highway=service, or a highway=track, then it's probably an unclassified 
road." 

So the statement removed in February  is a "NOOP" statement. Saying

"you cant be A if you are B"

Now you changed it to something completely different with additional claims.

Flo




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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Warin]

On 05/08/19 16:32, Peter Elderson wrote:
At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it 
means nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:


A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;

No. The tag highway=road says that the class is unknown.



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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Peter Elderson]

At the moment, 'unclassified' has so many different opinions that it means
nothing at all. Could we at least agree on the basics:

A. "unclassified" means you don't know the class;
or
B. "unclassified"  is a class in itself.

If A the UK needs an alternative for roads officially classified as
'unclassified'. I would go with 'quaternary' because it can be applied
anywhere.

If B a better differentiation is needed. I think defining it as "same as
" is not helpful. Current OSM-usage is not helpful, because it
just reflects the indecision and confusion. Maybe it's best to define
"unclassified" as UK-only, and add quaternary for the missing step between
tertiary and residential.

Why missing link? I don't know the whole world, but all european countries
I know have some sort of official classification of three levels to move
around the country, and a lot of other public roads, brushed together as a
rest category of "other roads". If we classify in the database, that's
'unclassified' or quaternary for me. Then residential roads/areas are
mostly entered through those.

As it stands, routing/navigating is not that bad, probably because I use
OSM mainly for cycling/walking.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 5 aug. 2019 om 07:11 schreef Florian Lohoff :

> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:55:16PM +0100, ael wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > > sent from a phone
> > > > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > > > A residential is also an unclassified road.
> > >
> > > IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection
> grid, while a residential road is not
> >
> > My reply was going to be much the same. Unclassified roads are generally
> > for "through traffic". Residential raods are primarily for access to
> > those buildings, and would not (normally) be used for travel to other
> > destinations.
>
> No statement in the Wiki backs up this claim. This is what i say.
>
> No statement about through traffic. Residentials are for through
> traffic aswell although their primary purpose may be access to the
> residential area.
>
> This is what our algorithmic brothers in routing/navigation do. Treating
> unclassified and residential the same.
>
> And we cant distinguish these 2 by hard facts. Its more or less "felt
> traffic pattern" or "believe" or "experience" how you tag.
>
> Flo
> --
> Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
> UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:30:48AM +0100, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:

> I just reverted it.  And added some clarification (some may disagree and
> think I've murkified it)
> based on why I think those words were removed back in February.  Feel free
> to fix my fixes.

Your statement added:

"but which are not normally used as through routes (which would usually 
be
classified highways or unclassified highways)."

I disagree on this. I dont think we have consensus that residential
are not for through traffic. Our routers/navigators dont treat it like
that. And if we assume so there is a HUGE difference in unclassified and
residential we dont actually yet have.

And its not the claim which has been removed in February.

"but which are not a classified or unclassified highways."

This is a statement which unclassified carries aswell:

In short, when other highway=* tags are more applicable, use those
instead. If a public road is of lesser importance than what's called a
highway=tertiary in your region, and is also not a highway=residential, 
a
highway=service, or a highway=track, then it's probably an unclassified 
road."  

So the statement removed in February  is a "NOOP" statement. Saying

"you cant be A if you are B"

Now you changed it to something completely different with additional claims.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 07:55:16PM +0100, ael wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > sent from a phone
> > > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > > A residential is also an unclassified road.
> > 
> > IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection 
> > grid, while a residential road is not 
> 
> My reply was going to be much the same. Unclassified roads are generally
> for "through traffic". Residential raods are primarily for access to
> those buildings, and would not (normally) be used for travel to other
> destinations.

No statement in the Wiki backs up this claim. This is what i say.

No statement about through traffic. Residentials are for through
traffic aswell although their primary purpose may be access to the
residential area.

This is what our algorithmic brothers in routing/navigation do. Treating
unclassified and residential the same.

And we cant distinguish these 2 by hard facts. Its more or less "felt
traffic pattern" or "believe" or "experience" how you tag.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:21:14PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I don’t think this is a valid conclusion:
> 
> - we are not restricting our tagging to official denominations but
> give precedence to on the ground usage

Correct - But from my experience its either a service or it has
a name. At least in the part of Germany where i map.

There are of course the 1% of exceptions where Bayer or BASF names roads
on their facility property. But the typical parking aisle or
access to a fuel station should not carry a name.

And naming driveways as the roads they originate from is broken. The
driveway itself does not have a name.

For me this is also a matter of housekeeping the search index in
nominatim. If i search for Bahnhofstraße is typically dont want
to find 100's of Driveways named Bahnhofstraße.
 
> - the service class is further divided into many different classes
> like driveways, alleys, parking aisles, drive through ways, minor
> generic access roads, etc., some may have names, many will usually not
> carry a name.

Which of those do carry names typically? I cant see any? And its just
my mapper experience in the wider area i map that we typically dont have
names. And if they are named its a bug in 97% of the cases.

And in the QA i do i do not flag 100% issues - but objects you might
want to take a look at because they are fishy. And typically its not
just that one object but some blocks which have been mapped with strange
assumptions.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 00:12, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

this should be reverted, and I would be glad if someone did it now, because
> I cannot do it myself at the moment. Thank you.
>

I just reverted it.  And added some clarification (some may disagree and
think I've murkified it)
based on why I think those words were removed back in February.  Feel free
to fix my fixes.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 4. Aug 2019, at 16:50, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>> Residential roads are the roads inside the residential area, which are
>> not used by through traffic
> 
> Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> residential may not be used for through traffic?



sorry, I was not precise, what I meant to say was that residential roads are 
not intended for through traffic. According to the context (e.g. oneway and 
dead end, or a grid) you may be able to “bypass the main traffic” and be faster 
(when the principal road is congested), but you are not supposed to do it, and 
it will usually be slower (slower speeds, pedestrians, no right of way at 
crossings, penalized at traffic lights etc.). Or in another context it will not 
be possible to go “through” a residential area, you can only enter and leave 
“at the same side”.

You may sometimes/often be able to go through the residential area on 
residential streets, but it doesn’t make them roads for through traffic. The 
roads for through traffic are usually tagged with tertiary+, minor ones with 
unclassified, so they can’t be residential ;-)




> The opposite is described in highway=residential:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential
> 
>This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas.


Maybe I don’t understand the word “access” correctly here, but if I think about 
an access road to a residential area, it would be different from the 
residential roads in the area. I would suggest to clarify this in the wiki 
(remove access or illustrate what it means).

Anyway, this is the result of an edit from February this year, where the 
long-standing definition was changed by removing this:
but which are not a classified or unclassified highways.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dresidential=revision=1789326=1526745


this should be reverted, and I would be glad if someone did it now, because I 
cannot do it myself at the moment. Thank you.


Cheers Martin 


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Peter Elderson]

It's supposed to be modeled after the british road system. If the class
exists only in the UK and you're a strictie, then you should not use it
outside the UK.

If you are a non-strictie then you can use the classification únclassified'
for comparable roads, i.e. a class of connecting road in the public grid,
above residential and below tertiary.

Residential is meant to give access to neighbourhoods and houses within a
residential area, as its primary function.

A road outside a residential area can have lots of houses along it's
length, but the primary function is connecting roads to roads, roads to
residential areas, or interconnecting residential areas. I think that is
"unclassified", even where there is no official classification.

So my hierarchy is: ...>tertiary>unclassified>residential>living_street

Woudn't mind calling it quaternary though. Would probably solve the issue.
Of course this will never happen. No consensus, too much work.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op zo 4 aug. 2019 om 20:58 schreef Dave Swarthout :

> Peter wrote:
> My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘,
> which is a class of road in the public road system.
>
> I respectfully disagree.
> That is only the case where a country has a class of roads they label or
> call "Unclassified". In Alaska and Thailand, where I do the bulk of my
> mapping, an unclassified highway is just that, it is a highway having no
> classification. I consider it higher in the hierarchy than a residential
> and lower than a tertiary, although some opinions may differ. Whether paved
> or unpaved makes no difference. As long as it connects towns or hamlets in
> a reasonable manner, then it is an unclassified highway.
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:49 AM Peter Elderson 
> wrote:
>
>> My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘,
>> which is a class of road in the public road system. Other roads cannot be
>> classified as ‘unclassified’, but should get another classification. Roads
>> without classification need a fixme, not a classification as ‘unclassified’.
>>
>> Mvg Peter Elderson
>>
>> > Op 4 aug. 2019 om 16:23 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer <
>> dieterdre...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> >> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A residential is also an unclassified road.
>> >
>> >
>> > IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection
>> grid, while a residential road is not
>> >
>> > 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
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Mark Wagner]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 09:35:41 +0300
Tomas Straupis  wrote:

> Hello
> 
>   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
>   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in
> a map
>   * performing road network validation
>   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
> 
>   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar,
> bicycle, pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about
> motorcars.
> 
>   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> hierarchy:
>   * motorway
>   * trunk
>   * primary
>   * secondary
>   * tertiary
>   * unclassified
>   * residential
>   * living_street
>   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in
> other regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the
> same position. This is fine for the time being.
>   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.

The hierarchy is 

* Trunk
* Primary
* Secondary
* Tertiary
* Unclassified/Residential are more or less at the same level.  They're
  minor enough that any difference between them is a matter of local
  opinion.  In general, if you want a complete-looking map, you should
  draw both or neither.

Motorways are defined by their construction standards or legal
classification: think the Autobahn in Germany or Interstates in the US.
They're effectively at the top of the hierarchy, but this is an effect
of the things that make them motorways, not the cause.

Tracks, service roads, and living streets are outside the hierarchy.
Like motorways, they're defined by their attributes, not their
importance, though in this case, the effect of those attributes is to
tend to put them at the bottom of the hierarchy.

Deciding when and how to draw them is a matter of the needs of a map:
for example, a mountain-bike map for US National Forests might
emphasize tracks over hierarchy roads, while a driving map for farm
country might omit them entirely.

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Dave Swarthout]

Peter wrote:
My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘,
which is a class of road in the public road system.

I respectfully disagree.
That is only the case where a country has a class of roads they label or
call "Unclassified". In Alaska and Thailand, where I do the bulk of my
mapping, an unclassified highway is just that, it is a highway having no
classification. I consider it higher in the hierarchy than a residential
and lower than a tertiary, although some opinions may differ. Whether paved
or unpaved makes no difference. As long as it connects towns or hamlets in
a reasonable manner, then it is an unclassified highway.

On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 10:49 AM Peter Elderson  wrote:

> My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘,
> which is a class of road in the public road system. Other roads cannot be
> classified as ‘unclassified’, but should get another classification. Roads
> without classification need a fixme, not a classification as ‘unclassified’.
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
> > Op 4 aug. 2019 om 16:23 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >
> >
> >
> > sent from a phone
> >
> >> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> >>
> >> A residential is also an unclassified road.
> >
> >
> > IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection
> grid, while a residential road is not
> >
> > 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
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[ael]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:23:03PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > 
> > A residential is also an unclassified road.
> 
> 
> IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection grid, 
> while a residential road is not 

My reply was going to be much the same. Unclassified roads are generally
for "through traffic". Residential raods are primarily for access to
those buildings, and would not (normally) be used for travel to other
destinations.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Peter Elderson]

My research tells me ‘unclassified’ means classified as ‘unclassified‘, which 
is a class of road in the public road system. Other roads cannot be classified 
as ‘unclassified’, but should get another classification. Roads without 
classification need a fixme, not a classification as ‘unclassified’.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 4 aug. 2019 om 16:23 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
>> 
>> A residential is also an unclassified road.
> 
> 
> IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection grid, 
> while a residential road is not 
> 
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 15:51, Florian Lohoff  wrote:

>
> Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
> residential may not be used for through traffic?
>

Many residential roads are cul-de-sacs.  Dead ends.  Not classed as through
roads because
they don't lead anywhere except the houses that are on them.  Others can be
used as routes
from A to B but there are other routes that are shorter/wider/faster or
some combination of those.
And then there are tertiary (or higher) roads which lead from A to B but
which also have houses
along them.

A cul-de-sac, which many residential roads are, can never be used by
through traffic.  Roads
used by through traffic can have houses on them.  It is useful to make a
distinction in a way
that makes sense.

Of course, the situation is not the same in all countries.  Many towns and
cities in the US are
laid out in a grid plan and most residential roads can carry through
traffic.

So the (unwritten) rule isn't so much that residential roads may not be
used for through
traffic but that if (in normal circumstances) it's used for through traffic
then it's not a
residential road even if there are houses along it.

You could make a case that some roads can be both, but we don't have a way
of tagging
that situation in a way that is widely understood by data consumers, with
routers being the
most important type of data consumer to consider.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

Well, I would be reluctant to tag the ways leading to this remote
house as unclassified or residential:
https://openmap.lt/#h/17.01/54.19809/24.27953/0/0/
These are public ways/roads, anybody can use them - they are not
private. Yet they are not in the database of Lithuanian road agency,
so they are not managed by road agency.

Here in Lithuania we have a rule for at least ten years that: if you
can see tracks, then it is a track :-) And it corresponds very well to
what we see in topographical maps.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 04:30:54PM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> sent from a phone
> > On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> > 
> > Their difference is usage. In case of residential its usage is
> > predominantly access to an residential area, whereas the unclassified is
> > for interconnecting residential areas (be it villages).
> 
> for me the access to a residential area is not a residential road, it
> is at least an unclassified road or typically a tertiary road.
> Residential roads are the roads inside the residential area, which are
> not used by through traffic 

Where do you take this assumption from? I have never heard before that
residential may not be used for through traffic?

The opposite is described in highway=residential:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dresidential

This tag is used for roads accessing or around residential areas.

This is a useful guideline if you are not sure whether to use
residential or unclassified for streets in towns:

residential – street or road generally used for local traffic within
settlement.
unclassified – Unclassified roads typically form the lowest form of
the interconnecting grid network (below highway=tertiary 
roads). Roads
serving for interconnection of small settlements. Use 
residential rather
than unclassified on the road section if there are traffic 
restrictions
(such as slower speed limits) or traffic calming features near 
small
settlements. (See also highway=unclassified.)

So in case of residential usage, reduced speed limit (city boundary?) or
traffic calming one should rather use residential than unclassified.

I agree that living_street is not for through traffic - thats even in
German legalese.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> Their difference is usage. In case of residential its usage is
> predominantly access to an residential area, whereas the unclassified is
> for interconnecting residential areas (be it villages).


for me the access to a residential area is not a residential road, it is at 
least an unclassified road or typically a tertiary road. Residential roads are 
the roads inside the residential area, which are not used by through traffic 

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> A residential is also an unclassified road.


IMHO it is not, as an unclassified road is part of the interconnection grid, 
while a residential road is not 

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:26, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> - A service road may not carry a name (Because in Germany only public
>  roads get denominated a name).


I don’t think this is a valid conclusion:

- we are not restricting our tagging to official denominations but give 
precedence to on the ground usage

- the service class is further divided into many different classes like 
driveways, alleys, parking aisles, drive through ways, minor generic access 
roads, etc., some may have names, many will usually not carry a name.


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2019, at 11:06, Florian Lohoff  wrote:
> 
> For me a public road
> can not be a service. unclassified is defined as the lowest
> class of public roads.


it is not, it is “at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network.”, 
which means service roads are not interconnected, while unclassifieds are.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2019, at 10:46, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
> But what about service/track?


both are lowest classes for motorized vehicles, with a functional difference: 
tracks are for agricultural traffic (or analogously forestry or fishing), while 
service roads are access roads to “something” (restaurant, technical facility, 
etc.), i.e. these are minor roads that do not serve a different purpose than 
accessing a place (otherwise they would be a higher class)

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:20:49AM +0100, ael wrote:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
> > unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
> > has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
> > city boundaries, and as soon as there is predominent residential it
> > cant be a unclassified.
> 
> How have you come to that conclusion? It flatly contradicts the normal
> meaning. Perhaps your local area uses the term "unclassified" in a way
> different from the OSM convention?

A residential is also an unclassified road. It does not have
a classification as a tertiary or primary. So the difference
between an unclassified and a residential is not by their
classification (or lack thereof).

Their difference is usage. In case of residential its usage is
predominantly access to an residential area, whereas the unclassified is
for interconnecting residential areas (be it villages).

This is the exact terminology from:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified

"The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads
typically at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network.
Unclassified roads have lower importance in the road network than
tertiary roads, and are not residential streets or agricultural tracks.
highway=unclassified should be used for roads used for local traffic,
and for roads used to connect other towns, villages or hamlets.
Unclassified roads are considered usable by motor cars. Public
roads of low importance within town and cities that are not residential
may also be highway=unclassified."

So the difference is purely on the usage for residential traffic.

My assumption is that within city boundarys ALL roads carry mostly
residential traffic. One could argue that some roads are carrying
more through traffic than others but where do you draw that line and
do you count traffic when mapping? Its something we as OSM can 
not observe on the ground. Its a statistical matter.

Another indicator for me that neither unclassified nor residential
are of higher priority is the handling in for example OSRM. It
treats both equally in the assumption for travel speed etc.

This is why i make the shortcut in using residential within city
boundarys, and unclassified outside of city boundaries where there
is no residential usage - because everything else is highly disputable
and only provable with traffic analysis and statistics.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 01:18:13PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> > a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> > of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.
> >
> > Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.
> 
>   And therefore *track is higher* in the hierarchy than service. Right?

IMHO no - You have a hierarchy of public roads - from
residential/unclassified to motorway. service and track are not
in this hierarchy - they stand outside and carry various restrictions
depending on local regulation and have different purposes.

So a road which is for the general public like a
residential/unclassified must not be only reachable via a track/service.
This would be a breakage in hierarchy. The public road network is always
interconnected and should not build islands which cant be reached by
only using track or service roads. For most of the routers and modes of
transportation these would be hard islands. Same issue arises of
overbroad usage of access=* tagging.

This is why i have multiple QA tasks under these assumptions and German
legalese ...

- A public road may not carry a access=*
  The German legalese does not have a sign which completely forbids
  usage. The most restrictive sign still allows going by foot. 
  So the most restrictive access restriction could be vehicle=no
  (Except for construction - so i exclude highway=construction here)
- A public road may not carry any *=private
  If a public road is restricted to private its not a public road.
  Most likely this is a mistagging of the highway type
- A service road may not carry a name (Because in Germany only public
  roads get denominated a name). So either it has a name or its  
  a service.
- The nearest road to an address should not be a track.
  If the address is for living, the nearest road can not be a track
  as usage for living outweights agricultural usage by orders of
  magnitude. Or better - i search for the nearest legally usable
  road and have a cutoff for errors at arbitrarily chosen ~75meters. 
  Most of the errors i find are long driveways which carry arbitrary
  access tags, or farmyards which are only reachable via tracks.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:25:49PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote:
> On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> 
> > This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
> > road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
> > drop service and track.
> 
> What definition of "public" and "private" are you using here? This is
> another can of worms. 

There is an official road hierarchy where all our roads fit in. These
are for public usage and typically carry an implicit access=yes.

service and track do not belong into this hierarchy. They carry
implicit restrictions which vary from country to country or even
county to county.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-08-04 11:57, Florian Lohoff wrote:

> This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
> road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
> drop service and track.

What definition of "public" and "private" are you using here? This is
another can of worms. 

No two maps are the same. At the end of the day, a cartographer will
want control over their definition of "relative importance", based on
objective things like official classification, width, lanes, ownership,
access, traffic density, usage class (residential access etc). If we
wilfully manipulate the tagging to facilitate a particular definition of
"relative importance" we are breaking one of our own golden rules of
course. So let's stick to objective quantities if at all possible. Then
the "hierarchy" discussion is deferred to the cartographer in the
consumption phase, instead of the contributor in the data collection
phase.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[ael]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 10:30:49AM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > Hello
> > 
> >   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
> >   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
> >   * performing road network validation
> >   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
> > 
> >   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle,
> > pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.
> > 
> >   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> > hierarchy:
> >   * motorway
> >   * trunk
> >   * primary
> >   * secondary
> >   * tertiary
> >   * unclassified
> >   * residential
> >   * living_street
> >   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other
> > regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position.
> > This is fine for the time being.
> >   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.
> 
+1

> For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
> unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
> has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
> city boundaries, and as soon as there is predominent residential it
> cant be a unclassified.

How have you come to that conclusion? It flatly contradicts the normal
meaning. Perhaps your local area uses the term "unclassified" in a way
different from the OSM convention?

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-08-04, sk, 12:59 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
> a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
> of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.
>
> Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.

  And therefore *track is higher* in the hierarchy than service. Right?

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:46:05PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
> want to leave B.
> 
> Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
> that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
> generalisation operation such as road pruning?

When you honestly look at roads something like a correct hierarchy
always ressembles.

This is why i get to the point "is it a public road" and "a public
road cant be service". If we agree on this you can as some zoom scale
drop service and track.

Because a public road does not branch of a private road. There is
your hierarchy.

So getting back to your example:

R
R
RAAA
R  A
R
R
R
R

If B is a public road A cant be private property and thus not be
a service. If B is a track A can be a service because both
of them share the concept of not beeing for the general public.

Or vice versa. If you make A a service B cant be a public road.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 12:19:52PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Let's say we have a residential road R. Going out of this residential road
> there is a way A into the neighbouring residential area (say 50m length).
> Out of that way A there is anower way B leading into the fields/forest
> which lies outside of the residential area. B way is long enough and
> significant, say leading to some locally significant object (ruins, tree,
> lake).
> 
> R
> R
> RAAA
> R  A
> R

> What could be correct:
> a) A - service (service=???), B - track (tracktype=???)
> b) A - track grade1 B - track grade>1
> c) others

Is A a public named road? Make is residential. Is it a driveway
just for a single home? Make it service.

Is B predominantly for agricultural purposes? Make it track. Are
there more visitors to the ruins and its a public road? Make
it unclassified. Otherwise people cant navigate their POI.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

All right, let's make it more detailed and more extended.

R
R
RAAA
R  A
R
R
R
R

Now A and C are ways leading into the inner territory of residential
building(s). But A has another important road B getting out of it, and
C does not. Which means A has through traffic while C does not. But
all of them are very minor ways visible as two tracks on the ground.
Way C is used say twice in a week.

Now I would like to skip road C at small scale, but leave A, because I
want to leave B.

Can we agree on some scheme to tag this (do data augmentation), so
that less people doing cartography stuff have to resort to heavy
generalisation operation such as road pruning?

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

Let's say we have a residential road R. Going out of this residential road
there is a way A into the neighbouring residential area (say 50m length).
Out of that way A there is anower way B leading into the fields/forest
which lies outside of the residential area. B way is long enough and
significant, say leading to some locally significant object (ruins, tree,
lake).

R
R
RAAA
R  A
R


What could be correct:
a) A - service (service=???), B - track (tracktype=???)
b) A - track grade1 B - track grade>1
c) others
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Warin]

On 04/08/19 19:08, Tomas Straupis wrote:

2019-08-04, sk, 11:56 Erkin Alp Güney rašė:

Paved: service unpaved:track

   service could always be paved and unpaved.
   track used to be always unpaved, but somewhere somehow tracktype1
became paved :-)


I have a number of tracks around me. Some sections of them are paved to stop 
soil erosion. They are still tracks even if paved.

There are a number of main highways that are unpaved too, over long distances.

The surface of the road and how wide it is does not determine its importance to 
the road network and the local community.
The surface and width may impede or help transportation, but they don't change 
the necessity of using the roads.


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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:55:08AM +0300, Erkin Alp Güney wrote:
> Paved: service unpaved:track

So half of the highways in African countries are tracks?

IIRC osm does tag highway class by usage not by construction or
physical attributes.

So there is a perfect possibility that large stretches of primary roads
in Madagascar should carry a surface=dirt - So yes - highway=primary
surface=dirt is a pretty likely combination.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-08-04, sk, 11:56 Erkin Alp Güney rašė:
> Paved: service unpaved:track

  service could always be paved and unpaved.
  track used to be always unpaved, but somewhere somehow tracktype1
became paved :-)

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 11:46:26AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> > For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>
> 
>   Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
> 
>   But what about service/track?

Same dispute. I am one of the track opponents for years. I live in
the outback myself and i try to stop people tagging every road beyond
city limits as track.

A track is predominently for agricultural use. As soon as there
are people living there are predominently other uses than agricultural.

So the driveway to a farmyard can not be a track. 

I once made the claim its not a track if:

- The postal service uses it or
- The garbage truck uses it or
- The school bus uses it

And all of that is true if people are living there. The problem is
that tracks are not even considered in most routing/navigational
software so a lot of my neighbours would not be reachable if tagging
outback roads as track would hold up. 

So track is when there are no buildings or only a field barn.


Service is for me another complicated beast. For me a public road
can not be a service. unclassified is defined as the lowest
class of public roads. Service is defined as roads on industrial areas
etc.

So for Germany it cant be a service if:

- its of public use or
- it has a name (Only public roads get demoniated a name)

So i only tag roads on parking, driveway or industrial complexes
etc as service. I consider service roads beeing treated as
"access" destination and not for public use.

This is the reason why i dont think tagging every driveway as
access=private is a good thing to do. That causes all navigational
software to exclude these road snippets completely from their index. Now
you have private driveways up to multiple kilometers. When you now
navigate to an address you get told "You have reached your destination"
while beeing on the main road some multiple kilometers away not even
in visible contact to the building or the driveway. You might
even be on the wrong main road as mapping of addresses to the point
on the road network to navigate to is a minimum distance decision.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Erkin Alp Güney]

Paved: service unpaved:track

4 Ağu 2019 Paz 11:47 tarihinde Tomas Straupis 
şunu yazdı:

> 2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
>
>   Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.
>
>   But what about service/track?
>
> ___
> 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] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-08-04, sk, 11:32 Florian Lohoff rašė:
> For me unclassified is the same as residential. <...>

  Ok, so unclassified vs residential is regionally defined, as I wrote.

  But what about service/track?

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Florian Lohoff]

On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 09:35:41AM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Hello
> 
>   Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
>   * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
>   * performing road network validation
>   * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)
> 
>   Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle,
> pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.
> 
>   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> hierarchy:
>   * motorway
>   * trunk
>   * primary
>   * secondary
>   * tertiary
>   * unclassified
>   * residential
>   * living_street
>   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other
> regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position.
> This is fine for the time being.
>   I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.

For me unclassified is the same as residential. The difference is that
unclassified is for interconnecting residential areas, and residential
has residential traffic. So for me there cant be an unclassified within
city boundaries, and as soon as there is predominent residential it
cant be a unclassified.

So my guideline was:

Unclassified
- Public road
- Not classified
- Outside of city Boundary
- No predominant housing

Residential
- Public road
- Not classified
- Housing


This has been a constant argument on different mailinglist for multiple
years. Defacto handle routing engines those two identical so retagging
a residential to unclassified does not make them "quicker" in terms
of routability.

So - YMMV - And its easy to start another argument here ;)

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The  ran after a , but the  ran away


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

> Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified

  Interesting. Unclassified was always (more than 10 years) defined
for "through traffic" which puts it a higher in a hierarchy. From what
I understand it was always in the group of primary/secondary/tertiary
just the one which does not have an official classification - thus
"unclassified".

> Once again, personally service before track, maybe further split that 
> highway=service by itself is higher that the "types" of service road 
> (driveway, parking aisle etc)

  This way of interpreting service would make it impossible to
identify if missing service=* tag means:
  1. missing tag/information
  2. specified higher priority service road
  For example if you have service=driveway and want to make it higher
priority service road, you should change service value to something
else rather than remove service=* key.

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

Re: [Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 16:37, Tomas Straupis  wrote:

>
>   There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
> hierarchy:
>   * motorway
>   * trunk
>   * primary
>   * secondary
>   * tertiary
>   * unclassified
>   * residential
>   * living_street
>   In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in
> other regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same
> position. This is fine for the time being.
>

Personally, I'd have put residential / living together above unclassified


>My question is about what goes further:
>   track / service
>   Which of them is higher?
>   Does additional tags influence this? For example does adding
> service=driveway reduce position in hierarchy of service road? Does any
> value of tracktype change position of track road?
>

Once again, personally service before track, maybe further split that
highway=service by itself is higher that the "types" of service road
(driveway, parking aisle etc)

Thanks

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

[Tagging] Road hierarchy

[Tomas Straupis]

Hello

  Road hierarchy is needed for a number of things:
  * deciding which classes of roads to display on different scales in a map
  * performing road network validation
  * other tasks (f.e. typification of buildings - orientation)

  Hierarchy would be different in different context: motorcar, bicycle,
pedestrian etc. For the time being I'm only asking about motorcars.

  There is non written (or I could not find in wiki) or "de facto"
hierarchy:
  * motorway
  * trunk
  * primary
  * secondary
  * tertiary
  * unclassified
  * residential
  * living_street
  In some regions unclassified has a higher position in hierarchy, in other
regions unclassified, residential and living_street have the same position.
This is fine for the time being.
  I'm also intentionally skipping _link classes.

  My question is about what goes further:
  track / service
  Which of them is higher?
  Does additional tags influence this? For example does adding
service=driveway reduce position in hierarchy of service road? Does any
value of tracktype change position of track road?

  And in general, is there a point of agreeing on this globally or it will
stay regional anyway?

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