Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:54, Kevin Broderick wrote: > > The homeowner now maintains the driveway (or sometimes more than one > homeowner maintains a shared driveway), but the right-of-way remains open to > the public, even beyond the regularly maintained driveway. if you

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 19:26, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service > road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of > things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to parking lots,

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Kevin Broderick
Re: the discussion of driveways that are public ways, there *are* a fair number of such things in New England, particularly Vermont. I suspect there may be other places with similar situations, but I'm not sure; Vermont has a particular set of laws around town right-of-ways that have preserved

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 28/07/2020 03.15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Never use the driveway tag on public ways Uh... IIUC, "public" driveways are just fine. A driveway is a minor service road leading to a residential *or business* property. I've tagged plenty of things that aren't really "roads" (entrances to

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Paul Johnson
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 5:52 AM Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > >> >> I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as >> residential (eventually as service) and the

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
Am Di., 28. Juli 2020 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the property as > residential (eventually as service) and the part on private grounds as > service+driveway. Never use the driveway

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
28 Jul 2020, 09:15 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> As result, in initial stages something >> used solely as a driveway to a single >> house will be already named with >> it's own street name. >>

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-28 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 28. Jul 2020, at 07:13, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > As result, in initial stages something > used solely as a driveway to a single > house will be already named with > it's own street name. I treat these like this: the public part (if any) up to the

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
28 Jul 2020, 06:47 by mwoehlke.fl...@gmail.com: > On 27/07/2020 17.59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > >> Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: >> >>> I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if >>> it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 27/07/2020 17.59, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be highway=residential? Is there a difference if it's

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:38 PM brad wrote: > > > > I'm in central Colorado, & around here, I agree, tracktype is not > useful, the tracks here are mostly solid, grade 2 or 3, but could be a > high clearance, or 4wd road due to rocks and ledges. > However, smoothness could, and should be

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mike Thompson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:07 PM Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > >> On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >> >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >> >> these

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread brad
On 7/27/20 11:19 AM, Rob Savoye wrote: On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary.  Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct > >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) > >> these would be highway=service not track. > > I assume if the highway

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
Jul 27, 2020, 21:55 by r...@senecass.com: > On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >>> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >>> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >>> these would be highway=service not track. >>> > > I assume if the highway has no

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 21:56, Rob Savoye wrote: > > I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if > it has a county name, like "Lost Gulch Road" too, wouldn't it then be > highway=residential? that’s how I would see it as well Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 1:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but maybe still correct >> if it is leading to only vacation huts) >> these would be highway=service not track. I assume if the highway has no name, it'd be highway=service, but if it has a county

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 27. Jul 2020, at 17:20, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > wrote: > > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if it is > leading to > only vacation huts) these would be highway=service not track. Cheers Martin

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 12:21 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > Personally though, what the USFS uses to determine that difference > doesn't seem consistent, and over many years, the road conditions change > drastically due to erosion. I prefer to go there in a high-clearance > vehicle or UTV and decide

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 11:00 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* > tags as necessary.  Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit > US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness > are underutilized despite their

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 10:10 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > 3 and 4 digit forest service roads?  They're there exclusively there for > the benefit of forestry (namely logging, replanting and fire > suppression).  If they happen to help someone else get where they're > going, great, but that's not what they're

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
I'd go with highway=track and tracktype=*, surface=* and smoothness=* tags as necessary. Given how inconsistent the 3 and especially 4 digit US forest service roads tend to be, I'd expect tracktype and smoothness are underutilized despite their relative importance on those roads. A big hint:

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Rob Savoye
On 7/27/20 9:18 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > highway=track appears to be incorrect here (but may be still correct if > it is leading to only vacation huts) It's a residential "track" to the vacation houses, often usually only used in the summer or for ski trips. After the last

Re: [Tagging] FWD: Re: narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width

2020-07-27 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > > > Date: Jul 27, 2020, 15:54 > From: ba...@ursamundi.org > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] narrow=yes, vs lanes=1, vs width > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 8:37 AM Rob