On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:02:19 +0100 Wolfgang Zenker <wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org> wrote:
> * Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> [160109 13:12]: > > On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 10:50:37 +0100 > > Wolfgang Zenker <wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org> wrote: > > >> * Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com> [160107 23:35]: > >>> My parents house is in a pretty rural part of Arizona and > >>> distinguishing between tracks and driveways or even residential > >>> roads can be difficult there. So my initial instinct was to say > >>> leave the ways in that part of Colorado as tracks as it can be > >>> hard to tell on the imagery. > > >>> But looking at the satellite imagery in the area you linked, they > >>> clearly look like unpaved residential roads and dirt driveways. > > >>> I’d leave the driveways in but change the tagging to: > > >>> highway=service > >>> service=driveway > >>> surface=unpaved > >>> access=private > > >> I would do almost the same, but would leave out the access=private, > >> as this is difficult to determine from the aerial imagery, and is > >> implied for service=driveway anyway. > > > I would strongly dispute "implied for service=driveway anyway" - in > > some cases service=driveway is accessible for everybody, in > > many cases it is accessible at least for foot traffic. > > I agree that at least in most of Europe it would usually be > access=destination rather than access=private. However, I don't > think that any routing engine should route through traffic over > service=driveway. I would expect routers for foot and bicycle traffic to use also ways with service=driveway (except ones explicitly tagged as private). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging