On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:00:41 +0000 Gerd Petermann <[email protected]> wrote:
> yes, a missing name should be no reason for a > highway=residential_link. > > During the last days I've reviewed the remaining > highway=residential_link roads, a few of them are quite special, so I > fully understand that mappers have the idea that residential might > not be correct, esp. when they believe that a residential road > requires buildings close to it, which in my eyes is also not > mandantory. > > So, I see two possibilities: > 1) change the wiki(s) and validators to make absolutely clear that > the _link suffix should not be used with other than the major roads > which are now documented or > 2a) change the wiki(s) to tolerate suffix _link for all types of > minor ways (also footway, service etc) with the advice to use them > for > - roads that split at junctions > - shortcuts before junctions > (both with pictures) > - maybe more ? > without forcing this suffix for those roads. > 2b) tell data consumers, QA tools etc. to treat the roads > similar to those without the suffix. > > pro 1): easy to do > contra 1): many users will not care about what is written in a wiki, > so edit wars are possible > > 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) > > So, my proposal: > Let's do 1) and I'll try to keep an eye on Taginfo to > warn mappers when they use the _link suffix for > a minor road as long as we don't implement some kind > of automatism for that. > > Gerd > > ________________________________________ > Von: Michał Brzozowski <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. Using > > highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in the > > current situation. > > This is not the only example when a residential road doesn't have a > name. Keep in mind this is specifically why addr:place was invented - > there are villages (in quite a few countries around Europe, for > instance) when streets have no names, yet they are still residential. > The QA software you use makes wrong assumptions. > > Michał The big problem with 2a is that breaks nearly all data consumers of road network data and increases tagging complexity without noticeable benefits. It reminds me about https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/230#issuecomment-29238913 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
