Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 4:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2015-11-11 11:00 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann >: > >> pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test >> (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link)

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Von: Michał Brzozowski <www.ha...@gmail.com> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 10:21 An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Betreff: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Joachim <nore...@freedom-x.de> wrote: > Using no

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Marco Antonio wrote on 2015-11-11 02:10: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: Can you provide an example of real situation where highway=residential_link makes sense? In my city (in South America) it is very common to have this type of roads

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

2015-11-11 11:00 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann : > pro 2) : less confusing for those who like the duck test > (if there is a tertiary_link there should also be a xyz_link) > contra 2): more work for many people, hard to verify > reg. 2b) > I believe even tertiary

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

2015-11-11 11:57 GMT+01:00 Paul Johnson : > So, how do you propose the very common situation of porkchops on > tertiaries be handled? One such example is at 1st and Norfolk in Tulsa: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=36.15860=-95.97860#map=19/36.15860/-95.97860 > >

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100 Joachim wrote: > Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade junctions > like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is usually tagged > without a name because it connects two named roads and has none > itself.

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

The fact that tools don't currently support something is no reason to oppose its introduction either. If it were, we would never be able to change anything. On 2015-11-11 21:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100 > Joachim wrote: > >> Many

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:36:22 +0100 Colin Smale wrote: > On 2015-11-11 21:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100 > > Joachim wrote: > > > >> Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade > >> junctions

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

> On Nov 11, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Michał Brzozowski wrote: > > This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a > name There are no residential street names in all of Japan for tertiary roads and below (99.99%). There are a lot of numbered roads, but

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:45:29 +0100 Colin Smale wrote: > > > No, I can't think of any real examples at the moment, but that doesn't > make them any less existable. And if they exist, then > highway=residential_link is more logical than forcing > highway=residential and

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

> Von: Michał Brzozowski <www.ha...@gmail.com> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 11. November 2015 10:21 > An: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Betreff: Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Joachim <nore

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 13:54:45 +0100 Colin Smale wrote: > Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a > short link between two residentials is residential_link. The fact > that it is a very rare scenario does not detract from the fact that > it is

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

To me residential_link doesn't provide any meaningful distinction to warrant a new highway tag. Maybe you misunderstood what link is about. Links are for when collision-less means of joining or leaving high(er) speed traffic are needed. From what I know about your residential_link examples it's

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 12:31:08 -0500 Bryan Housel wrote: > Please consider the one I just added today: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970 > > > > > Can you provide an

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

No, I can't think of any real examples at the moment, but that doesn't make them any less existable. And if they exist, then highway=residential_link is more logical than forcing highway=residential and adding link=yes or some other flag to distinguish them. On 2015-11-10 17:19, Mateusz

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

2015-11-10 17:19 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Can you provide an example of real situation where > highway=residential_link makes sense? > Maybe in situations like this:

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

That is exactly the type of place I’d consider using a highway=residential_link tag. > On Nov 10, 2015, at 10:31 AM, Bryan Housel wrote: > > Please consider the one I just added today: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/379558356#map=19/40.68812/-74.38970 >

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Tod Fitch wrote on 2015-11-10 06:57: If the two roads the connecting way links are tagged as residential I don’t see > any other choice than to use residential_link. I'm skeptical about highway=residential_link as it further fragments the usage of the highway key. I prefer to consider

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

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

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > Can you provide an example of real situation where > highway=residential_link makes sense? In my city (in South America) it is very common to have this type of roads https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/253086441

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

2015-11-10 13:20 GMT+01:00 Tom Pfeifer : > > highway=service + service=residential_link or highway=residential + highway_link=yes cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Tom, To avoid key fragmentation? Really? Apparently creating is_link=yes is OK, but using residential_link is wrong. People only cite things like "key fragmentation" when it appears to support their case; it is not really an active Basic Principle of OSM. If it was, there are probably loads

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

Colin Smale wrote on 2015-11-10 13:54: Duck test: short link between two primaries is primary_link, so a short link > between two residentials is residential_link. The fact that it is a very rare > scenario does not detract from the fact that it is existable. > Why resort to a different

[Tagging] highway=residential_link

A question recently came up as to whether highway=residential_link is a meaningful tag or whether uses of it should be changed to some other value (like highway=residential or highway=service). This tag has no description in the wiki, though it is analogous to the other highway=*_link types

Re: [Tagging] highway=residential_link

I am pretty sure that I am one of the mappers that have used residential_link as a highway value in cases where there was a separate way for making a right turn from one residential road to another. If the two roads the connecting way links are tagged as residential I don’t see any other