Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > I know of a road built for coal trucks by the coal firm tagged as > 'unclassified' yet it is a 'private road' not used by cyclist nor > pedestrians. The road standard is probably above that of > 'unclassified'. It runs from a coal mine to a power plant, both are > winding down in operations. That's an unusual case, but I would agree that unclassified and access=private is fair. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
On 1/10/22 21:08, Timeo Gut wrote: On 30 Sep 2022, at 23:48, grin via Tagging wrote: Take a pretty common road type in Europe, which goes on the embankment of a river, which generally paved, narrow, legally open for walking and bicycling people, often part of the national/international bicycle-road network, and closed for motorcar traffic (usually only waterworks' cars are allowed). What's that? Cannot be "unclassified" since motorcars aren't allowed, cannot be service since it doesn't "leading to something". Some people tag it this way, some that way. It seems to me that highway=path (possibly with bicycle/foot=designated) would be the most suitable classification here. If waterworks' cars are they only ones legally allowed to use it then this road is not part of the general road network for cars so unclassified would not be appropriate. I know of a road built for coal trucks by the coal firm tagged as 'unclassified' yet it is a 'private road' not used by cyclist nor pedestrians. The road standard is probably above that of 'unclassified'. It runs from a coal mine to a power plant, both are winding down in operations. IIRC the roads in the UK are legally assigned there ratings, hove ever that rating is based on the road standard. A 'path' in OSM (and I would think in Britain) would not be suitable for a car by width constraints, if a car travels down it then it is not a path, possibly a track or a service road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Most of the highway objects along waterways around here (Po Valley, Northern Italy) that are not open to public motor traffic, and wide enough for dual-track vehicles, are, in my view correctly, tagged as highway=track. They are used for waterway maintenance and for agricultural purposes on the adjacent properties. They may, in addition, explicitly carry cycling, or foot-cycling paths or cycle routes. They may in addition serve as service roads to reach private residences. Often these private residences are on a first, better maintained, part of the road, and this continues as a more track-like road further down. In those cases you could argue the first part is residential. Many of these tracks have also names, even if there are often no signs. On Sat, 12 Nov 2022, 12:21 Greg Troxel, wrote: > > Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On 1/10/22 20:25, stevea wrote: > >> Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders > >> wider understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and > >> while his perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), > >> these don't seem far apart or even different at all, and there may > >> likely be a further possible refinement here: > >> > >> "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and > subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and > >> > >> "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other > >> roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private > >> property" and not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. > > > > That would mean a crash on them would not have road laws applied to it > > .. so the insurance companies could not attribute blame based on road > > laws.. that could get very difficult in court. > > This is not an actual problem in practice (mass.us). Well, traffic > laws and enforcement/liability *are* a mess, but they aren't > differentially messy in this case. > > It is true that you have to file an accident report with the police on > real roads, but not for crashes in parkings lots and driveways. But > liability is from tort law which doesn't care where. And criminal law > about negligent operation (similar for drunk driving) says: > > > https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24 > > Whoever upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of > access, or any place to which members of the public have access as > invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or > operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the > public might be endangered > > which means business/shopping driveways/lots count. > > But what the law says is not relevant in how we tag. I didn't really > mean "service is not subject to law". I meant that here we have a > concept of a legal road (referred to by "way" above) and places where > you can drive which are not legal roads (referred to by the other text). > > > I know the old definition of our 'motor traffic act' said something > > along the lines of a road is 'any place open to, or used, by the > > public' .. that includes private driveways, car parks etc etc as they > > are 'used by the public'. > > Sure. It is not surprising that law prohibits negligent behavior on > places the public normally goes, even if that is not a legal road. > > But there is still a difference legally in many places. Even if not, I > still think that unclassified for things that feel like actual roads and > service for things that feel like drivways and parking lots, makes > total sense. > ___ > 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] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes: > On 1/10/22 20:25, stevea wrote: >> Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders >> wider understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and >> while his perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), >> these don't seem far apart or even different at all, and there may >> likely be a further possible refinement here: >> >> "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and subject >> to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and >> >> "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other >> roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private >> property" and not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. > > That would mean a crash on them would not have road laws applied to it > .. so the insurance companies could not attribute blame based on road > laws.. that could get very difficult in court. This is not an actual problem in practice (mass.us). Well, traffic laws and enforcement/liability *are* a mess, but they aren't differentially messy in this case. It is true that you have to file an accident report with the police on real roads, but not for crashes in parkings lots and driveways. But liability is from tort law which doesn't care where. And criminal law about negligent operation (similar for drunk driving) says: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section24 Whoever upon any way or in any place to which the public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, operates a motor vehicle recklessly, or operates such a vehicle negligently so that the lives or safety of the public might be endangered which means business/shopping driveways/lots count. But what the law says is not relevant in how we tag. I didn't really mean "service is not subject to law". I meant that here we have a concept of a legal road (referred to by "way" above) and places where you can drive which are not legal roads (referred to by the other text). > I know the old definition of our 'motor traffic act' said something > along the lines of a road is 'any place open to, or used, by the > public' .. that includes private driveways, car parks etc etc as they > are 'used by the public'. Sure. It is not surprising that law prohibits negligent behavior on places the public normally goes, even if that is not a legal road. But there is still a difference legally in many places. Even if not, I still think that unclassified for things that feel like actual roads and service for things that feel like drivways and parking lots, makes total sense. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
On 1/10/22 20:25, stevea wrote: Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders wider understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and while his perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), these don't seem far apart or even different at all, and there may likely be a further possible refinement here: "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private property" and not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. That would mean a crash on them would not have road laws applied to it .. so the insurance companies could not attribute blame based on road laws.. that could get very difficult in court. I know the old definition of our 'motor traffic act' said something along the lines of a road is 'any place open to, or used, by the public' .. that includes private driveways, car parks etc etc as they are 'used by the public'. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
1 paź 2022, 18:30 od f...@zz.de: > For me the difference is > > service -> Private property > unclassified -> Public road > That is not viable as general rule. For example Poland has driveway leadingto abandoned railway station classifiedas a public road. Tagging it as highway=unclassified isclearly wrong > Its not about where it is connected. > I want to dispute this.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
stevea writes: > Ah, I thought of an exception: a service=alley is (usually, around > here, in California) a public way, but it IS more "service-" oriented, > like maybe it only gets used for rare, backyard-access by owners > (which would be exclusively private use), but maybe it DOES get used > for trash collection (which would be a public use). Good point. I'm fine with service=alley even for public ways, because while public ways they aren't really part of the road grid in any meaningful sense. Trash collection isn't "use by members of the public" though. Here, if you pay extra, trash trucks will come up long driveways to the house, vs you taking bins to the road. The real point is "if some random person drives on it just because they feel like it, can the police legitimately tell them they can't do that." signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Kevin Broderick writes: > Another exception in New England, particularly, is that some states > (especially New Hampshire and Vermont) have a non-trivial number of > driveways that are privately maintained but in whole or part legally public > right of ways. In some cases, three public right of way continues past the > maintained portion of the driveway as a woods road of some variety; in > others, they end in someone's yard. > > To me, tagging those as driveway with appropriate access info and tagging > the woods road, where applicable, as track seems appropriate even though > they are pubic right of ways. In (central, pretty rural) MA, I know of a 'paved area you can drive on' that is functionally a driveway, but has a name and is in the state's road dataset with that name. It is legally a public way and snow is plowed by the town. Whether they will ever pave the crumblying pavement is an open question :-) But if they aren't named by the government, then driveway seems right, with access=yes. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
"Shawn K. Quinn" writes: > Related to this, I've been tagging the driveways inside apartment > complexes as service, but a lot of mappers tag them as > residential. These roads are more similar to shopping mall driveways > than the type of road I would normally tag as residential; also note > they almost never have names and are almost never tagged as noname=yes > when mapped as residential. For a lot of purposes apartments are often > considered commercial properties for many purposes (eligibility for > city/county garbage collection, among others) even though they are > places where people live long term. I'd say that if the driveways are not open to anyone driving on them by right, aren't "legal roads", and don't have names (the way things around me that fit what you're describing), then service=driveway is correct. (I don't see eligibility for trash pickup etc as very relevant.) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
The description doesn't work as a definition: "Generally for access to a building, service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park, etc. This is also commonly used for access to parking, driveways, and alleys." A dead-end public road to a facility (called "service road"?) should obviously be mapped as "unclassified", but this road also fits the description of "service". We need some wording about "private" or "public" such as the suggestion by Stevea: > "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and > > "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private property" and not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances There are roads used like public roads even though they are on private land (at least in Japan). This should be "unclassified". That is, we cannot simply use "is it on public or private land" to distinguish between "unclassified" and "service". In other words, highway=unclassified + access=private is not highway=service. Another issue with "service" is service=alley. Physically narrow roads (car cannot pass) that are legally the same as normal public roads are sometimes tagged as highway=service + service=alley because it renders thin on the map. These roads are still a part of road networks for foot/bicycle/motorcycles, so they logically should be tagged as highway=unclassified + width=* (motorcar=no cannot be used because not a legal restriction?) or highway=path + mofa/moped/motorcycle=yes. Anyway, I think the definitions both of highway=service and service=* should be refined. gyotoku810 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Another exception in New England, particularly, is that some states (especially New Hampshire and Vermont) have a non-trivial number of driveways that are privately maintained but in whole or part legally public right of ways. In some cases, three public right of way continues past the maintained portion of the driveway as a woods road of some variety; in others, they end in someone's yard. To me, tagging those as driveway with appropriate access info and tagging the woods road, where applicable, as track seems appropriate even though they are pubic right of ways. On Sat, Oct 1, 2022, 06:43 stevea wrote: > Ah, I thought of an exception: a service=alley is (usually, around here, > in California) a public way, but it IS more "service-" oriented, like maybe > it only gets used for rare, backyard-access by owners (which would be > exclusively private use), but maybe it DOES get used for trash collection > (which would be a public use). > > Sometimes we need to type these things out loud to "riff through the > possibilities." Hey, they don't call these "talk lists" (well, mail-lists, > too) for nothing. > > > On Oct 1, 2022, at 3:25 AM, stevea wrote: > > > > Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders wider > understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and while his > perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), these don't seem > far apart or even different at all, and there may likely be a further > possible refinement here: > > > > "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and > subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and > > > > "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other > roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private property" and > not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. > > > > That's admittedly rough, but it does add something that I believe is > true here. Maybe it helps, maybe not. > > > ___ > 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] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Hola, On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 05:44:04PM +0200, grin via Tagging wrote: > > service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions > > There are some discrepancies between this page and > highway=unclassified, and the wording leaves a lot to interpretation > and opinions. > > This page suggests that service is a road which ends on some feature > with no through traffic (leading to a building, a parking place, etc). > Is is also specifically exclude frontage roads as an example to tag > according to function and not purpose. By following this definition a > road with throughfaring traffic (where both end is open, connecting to > other roads or tracks) cannot be service, so it should be > unclassified. For me the difference is service -> Private property unclassified -> Public road Its not about where it is connected. Obviously when service is typically private property we would not send public through traffic there. > Take a pretty common road type in Europe, which goes on the embankment > of a river, which generally paved, narrow, legally open for walking > and bicycling people, often part of the national/international > bicycle-road network, and closed for motorcar traffic (usually only > waterworks' cars are allowed). What's that? Cannot be "unclassified" > since motorcars aren't allowed, cannot be service since it doesn't > "leading to something". Some people tag it this way, some that way. > That's not good. We had this discussion in the German Forum already a gazillion times and there is no consensus. For me the canal ways are private property, and thus the roads are not for public usage as long as not stated otherwise. On most canal ways in Germany we have Cycling allowed. Its not a track as its not for agricultural purposes. > Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften Its not - Service (as tracks) are not part of the public road network. A service is NOT a "small unclassified". Its a road connecting the public road network with or within the private property. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
sent from a phone > On 1 Oct 2022, at 13:16, Timeo Gut wrote: > > On tbe other hand if it's frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists then > service doesn't seem right either. it is not uncommon in rural areas around here that hiking or cycling routes have some parts on highway=service, particularly in settlements or close to them. The road is there for access to something, but it is also legally possible to use it on foot or bike (or all motor vehicles sometimes), but they aren’t residential roads and stop at a certain point (no through traffic for motor vehicles). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
> On 30 Sep 2022, at 23:48, grin via Tagging wrote: > > Take a pretty common road type in Europe, which goes on the embankment of a > river, which generally paved, narrow, legally open for walking and bicycling > people, often part of the national/international bicycle-road network, and > closed for motorcar traffic (usually only waterworks' cars are allowed). > What's that? Cannot be "unclassified" since motorcars aren't allowed, cannot > be service since it doesn't "leading to something". Some people tag it this > way, some that way. It seems to me that highway=path (possibly with bicycle/foot=designated) would be the most suitable classification here. If waterworks' cars are they only ones legally allowed to use it then this road is not part of the general road network for cars so unclassified would not be appropriate. On tbe other hand if it's frequently used by pedestrians and cyclists then service doesn't seem right either. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
On 9/30/22 10:44, grin via Tagging wrote:
Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften
the wording even more ("generally" to "in many cases", for example),
or unclassified shall drop requirement for motorcars and suggesting
service for "narrow paved roads w/ private motorcar access". I'd
support the latter: I would rather use unclassified here, but that's
an opinion.
I would tend to use service when it's either not a government-maintained
road or it's not named and has no ref. Service roads can be named/have a
ref, of course, but this is by far the exception not the rule. I agree
completely on the motorcar requirement being dropped as unclassified
would otherwise arguably fit some bicycle roads quite well.
Related to this, I've been tagging the driveways inside apartment
complexes as service, but a lot of mappers tag them as residential.
These roads are more similar to shopping mall driveways than the type of
road I would normally tag as residential; also note they almost never
have names and are almost never tagged as noname=yes when mapped as
residential. For a lot of purposes apartments are often considered
commercial properties for many purposes (eligibility for city/county
garbage collection, among others) even though they are places where
people live long term.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Ah, I thought of an exception: a service=alley is (usually, around here, in California) a public way, but it IS more "service-" oriented, like maybe it only gets used for rare, backyard-access by owners (which would be exclusively private use), but maybe it DOES get used for trash collection (which would be a public use). Sometimes we need to type these things out loud to "riff through the possibilities." Hey, they don't call these "talk lists" (well, mail-lists, too) for nothing. > On Oct 1, 2022, at 3:25 AM, stevea wrote: > > Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders wider > understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and while his > perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), these don't seem > far apart or even different at all, and there may likely be a further > possible refinement here: > > "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and subject to > traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and > > "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other roads > not in the public grid of road network" are "on private property" and not > (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. > > That's admittedly rough, but it does add something that I believe is true > here. Maybe it helps, maybe not. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
sent from a phone > On 1 Oct 2022, at 12:22, Greg Troxel wrote > > So I don't know about the OP's country's laws, but I would suggest > looking at legal definitions of roads, and tending to unclassified for > legal roads and service for things that are not legally roads, if that > makes sense locally. In Massachusetts, US, it totally makes sense. > makes mostly sense to me, for unclassified it is perfectly in line, while for service there are cases around here where the way is legally a public way (although not necessarily a road, e.g. in historic settlements where widths are so narrow that regular cars, despite of having the formal rights, cannot physically pass), and others where it is not Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Makes sense to me, too, Greg. I don't know if it helps or hinders wider understanding, but I understand what Greg is saying here, and while his perspective is "Eastern USA" (and mine is "Western USA"), these don't seem far apart or even different at all, and there may likely be a further possible refinement here: "unclassified" roads, as a "real legal roads" are "in public," and subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances, and "service" roads, as "private driveways, parking lot aisles and other roads not in the public grid of road network" are "on private property" and not (as) subject to traffic rules/laws/ordinances. That's admittedly rough, but it does add something that I believe is true here. Maybe it helps, maybe not. > On Oct 1, 2022, at 3:13 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > > > Peter Elderson writes: > >> Unclassified, by definition, is a road on the traffic grid suitable >> for motorised vehicles. It is not necessarily paved. Access >> restrictions may apply, and usage may change in time, e.g the road >> still connects, but is legally closed for cars except emergency >> vehicles and people who live along the road. Or, a new railway >> intersects the road and no crossing is provided. In those cases, >> usually the road is still seen as an unclassified road. > > Agreed. > > And, I see a huge distinction between a "real legal road" that to first > order anyone may drive on (even if some have access=destination rules) > and "service roads" which are often entirely private and do not have > legal road layouts (as reflected in the registry of deeds/cadastre). > Around me there is usually no right of access to service roads. > > As another data point, if you have a car crash on a real road, you are > required to file an accident report with the police but if it is in a > parking lot etc. you are not. > > So I don't know about the OP's country's laws, but I would suggest > looking at legal definitions of roads, and tending to unclassified for > legal roads and service for things that are not legally roads, if that > makes sense locally. In Massachusetts, US, it totally makes sense. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Peter Elderson writes: > Unclassified, by definition, is a road on the traffic grid suitable > for motorised vehicles. It is not necessarily paved. Access > restrictions may apply, and usage may change in time, e.g the road > still connects, but is legally closed for cars except emergency > vehicles and people who live along the road. Or, a new railway > intersects the road and no crossing is provided. In those cases, > usually the road is still seen as an unclassified road. Agreed. And, I see a huge distinction between a "real legal road" that to first order anyone may drive on (even if some have access=destination rules) and "service roads" which are often entirely private and do not have legal road layouts (as reflected in the registry of deeds/cadastre). Around me there is usually no right of access to service roads. As another data point, if you have a car crash on a real road, you are required to file an accident report with the police but if it is in a parking lot etc. you are not. So I don't know about the OP's country's laws, but I would suggest looking at legal definitions of roads, and tending to unclassified for legal roads and service for things that are not legally roads, if that makes sense locally. In Massachusetts, US, it totally makes sense. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Unclassified, by definition, is a road on the traffic grid suitable for
motorised vehicles. It is not necessarily paved. Access restrictions may apply,
and usage may change in time, e.g the road still connects, but is legally
closed for cars except emergency vehicles and people who live along the road.
Or, a new railway intersects the road and no crossing is provided. In those
cases, usually the road is still seen as an unclassified road.
Peter Elderson
> Op 30 sep. 2022 om 17:48 heeft grin via Tagging
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hello,
>
> To open it for a larger audience please let me share my question from the osm
> wiki:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dservice#service_vs._unclassified,_conflicting_definitions
>
> Quoting:
>
> - - - - -
>
> service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
>
> There are some discrepancies between this page and highway=unclassified, and
> the wording leaves a lot to interpretation and opinions.
>
> This page suggests that service is a road which ends on some feature with no
> through traffic (leading to a building, a parking place, etc). Is is also
> specifically exclude frontage roads as an example to tag according to
> function and not purpose. By following this definition a road with
> throughfaring traffic (where both end is open, connecting to other roads or
> tracks) cannot be service, so it should be unclassified.
>
> However unclassified declares itself as "considered usable by motorcars" and
> also "In rural contexts, narrow paved roads with only private access for
> motorcars (maybe public access for agricultural motor-vehicles, cyclists and
> pedestrians) should be tagged as highway=service and motorcar=private (maybe
> motor_vehicle=agricultural)", suggesting that unclassified requires to be
> motorcar=yes and suggests that "narrow paved roads with motorcar=private"
> should be tagged as service.
>
> These definitions quite contradict one another.
>
> Take a pretty common road type in Europe, which goes on the embankment of a
> river, which generally paved, narrow, legally open for walking and bicycling
> people, often part of the national/international bicycle-road network, and
> closed for motorcar traffic (usually only waterworks' cars are allowed).
> What's that? Cannot be "unclassified" since motorcars aren't allowed, cannot
> be service since it doesn't "leading to something". Some people tag it this
> way, some that way. That's not good.
>
> Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften the
> wording even more ("generally" to "in many cases", for example), or
> unclassified shall drop requirement for motorcars and suggesting service for
> "narrow paved roads w/ private motorcar access". I'd support the latter: I
> would rather use unclassified here, but that's an opinion.
>
> Your inputs are welcome.
>
> - - - - -
>
> Here, as well as there.
>
> Thank you,
> g
>
> ___
> 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] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
sent from a phone
> On 30 Sep 2022, at 17:48, grin via Tagging wrote:
>
> Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften the
> wording even more ("generally" to "in many cases", for example), or
> unclassified shall drop requirement for motorcars and suggesting service for
> "narrow paved roads w/ private motorcar access". I'd support the latter: I
> would rather use unclassified here, but that's an opinion.
>
> Your inputs are welcome.
a service road will often be a dead end, but „no through traffic“ does not mean
there cannot be a continuation of the road (but with limited access), you could
also see it like 2 (or even more) service roads that connect at the feature.
For service=alley it is usual to be connected in a grid, for service=driveway
it is atypical (maybe on camp sites?), there are different road types all under
the highway=service umbrella
Cheers Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
Hello,
To open it for a larger audience please let me share my question from the osm
wiki:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dservice#service_vs._unclassified,_conflicting_definitions
Quoting:
- - - - -
service vs. unclassified, conflicting definitions
There are some discrepancies between this page and highway=unclassified, and
the wording leaves a lot to interpretation and opinions.
This page suggests that service is a road which ends on some feature with no
through traffic (leading to a building, a parking place, etc). Is is also
specifically exclude frontage roads as an example to tag according to function
and not purpose. By following this definition a road with throughfaring traffic
(where both end is open, connecting to other roads or tracks) cannot be
service, so it should be unclassified.
However unclassified declares itself as "considered usable by motorcars" and
also "In rural contexts, narrow paved roads with only private access for
motorcars (maybe public access for agricultural motor-vehicles, cyclists and
pedestrians) should be tagged as highway=service and motorcar=private (maybe
motor_vehicle=agricultural)", suggesting that unclassified requires to be
motorcar=yes and suggests that "narrow paved roads with motorcar=private"
should be tagged as service.
These definitions quite contradict one another.
Take a pretty common road type in Europe, which goes on the embankment of a
river, which generally paved, narrow, legally open for walking and bicycling
people, often part of the national/international bicycle-road network, and
closed for motorcar traffic (usually only waterworks' cars are allowed). What's
that? Cannot be "unclassified" since motorcars aren't allowed, cannot be
service since it doesn't "leading to something". Some people tag it this way,
some that way. That's not good.
Either service should mean "one level below unclassified" and soften the
wording even more ("generally" to "in many cases", for example), or
unclassified shall drop requirement for motorcars and suggesting service for
"narrow paved roads w/ private motorcar access". I'd support the latter: I
would rather use unclassified here, but that's an opinion.
Your inputs are welcome.
- - - - -
Here, as well as there.
Thank you,
g
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
