Thanks for the feedback on the shared driveways. I was wondering if you would take the same approach to similar shared driveways that lead to commercial properties as per ways in residential areas? Refer to examples below:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/698542896 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/595212641 regards, Sebastian > On 16 Mar 2022, at 12:15 pm, Dian Ågesson <m...@diacritic.xyz> wrote: > > > Hey Matthew, > > I think the distinction is inherited from the distinction between > highway=service and highway=residential. A “regular” driveway shouldn’t be a > residential road, and a narrow, but otherwise unremarkable residential road > doesn’t become a service road. > > I do feel as though there is some overlap between highway=residential and > highway=service as they are used. I’ve seen some residential roads tagged as > service roads because they are “less important” or narrower than surrounding > roads; possibly in order to affect the rendering. If a residential road is > narrow enough though, it can be tagged as alley. > > If I had to try and define the difference, it’d probably be based on whether > the road is accessing a “single property” or not. The wiki definition of > “highway=service” is for access roads to a building, servo, beach, campsite, > industrial estate, business park, etc. This would suggest that it is > appropriate for roads that access a large property with multiple tenants, > which could be analogous to a subdivided parcel of land with multiple units. > Having a street name should generally be the giveaway, some googling also > suggests that the lack of footpaths, streetlights, etc are other common > features. > > Ultimately though it’s subjective, and Seb’s examples are probably three > perfect examples of edge cases. > > Example 1 (818426144): Agree that highway=residential is not appropriate > here. It looks like a driveway from the road functions, but the actual > properties seem to access from shared driveways branched off of the main way: > personally I’d say highway=service with five pups gems branching off, but I > wouldn’t “correct” the main branch if it had been tagged as a pipe stem as > well. It does happen to be very long, though: if it was given a gazetted > name, with each house getting renumbered accordingly, I think residential > would be a justifiable alternative. The way north of this (181739516) is an > example of just that: the mapper has gone with a plain highway=service, but > residential would have been my first choice. > > The second example, Tilbavale Close, doesn’t look like a driveway, has > individually numbered properties, and (for lack of a more scientific word) > doesn’t “feel” like a driveway. It’s a narrow residential street. The funny > spurs coming off the Close (184844140), even though they are part of the > gazetted roadway, do look like shared driveways. > > The last example (Cassugan Court) looks like like a driveway from the road, > but someone has gone and gazetted a name and numbered the properties with it. > Each property does have their own driveway branching off of it, though, so > I’d say this looks like the most “driveway-ish” a road could be while still > being highway=residential. If I came across this with a plain highway=service > tag though, I’m not sure I’d correct it. > > It might be easier to define a pipe stem/shared driveway by what it isn’t: > it isn’t a through road, it isn’t any narrow residential road, it isn’t any > “short” residential road, etc… > > Dian > >> On 2022-03-16 11:17, Matthew Seale wrote: >> >> So what then distinguishes highway=residential from a shared driveway in >> Sebastian's 3 examples? >> >> * The first way 818426144 is an unnamed shared service road, so seems to >> neatly fit the pipestem example as explained. The addresses in this style >> of development are likely to be unit numbers, otherwise sharing a shared >> main road street addresss. >> * The second way 184844142 and the third way 429541974 are named roads that >> appear as named roads on the JOSM Vicmap road network layer. The addresses >> in these instances will most likely use that street name as their address, >> not the next main road they connect to. So these don't appear to neatly >> fit the concept of a shared driveway to my thinking. >> >> Otherwise taken to it's extreme interpretation there would be a large number >> of highway=residential that, due to being in privately developed areas, >> could be change to pipestem. I don't think that is the intent. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Matthew >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 9:42 AM Dian Ågesson <m...@diacritic.xyz> wrote: >> Interesting discussion; it does seem like the consensus is landing on the >> side of service=pipestem. >> >> There are 668 instances of driveway=pipestem in Australia: >> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gU6, but there is 0 instances of >> service=pipestem: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUd. However, it seems as >> though I have had a disproportionate influence (509 of driveway=pipestem >> were last edited by me https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1gUf) >> >> I don't have a strong preference either way, so I'm happy to move over to >> the service=pipestem structure (possibly through bulk edit?) >> >> Dian >> >> On 2022-03-16 08:53, Andrew Harvey wrote: >> >> In the global community it's still disputed, see >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:service%3Ddriveway#Pipestems >> and my proposal to have this as an editor preset >> https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/239 where the >> tagging question is still not resolved. >> >> I've actually come around to the idea that service=pipstem is better, >> rational being that service=driveway is very clearly defined on the wiki as >> a non-shared driveway leading to a single residence. I think it's best we >> leave that intact and have a sibling tag service=pipestem for shared >> driveways. Otherwise you'll need to redefine service=driveway to be any type >> of shared or non-shared driveway and add a new tag driveway=single to most >> existing highway=service. >> >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2022 at 08:10, Tom Brennan <webs...@ozultimate.com> wrote: >> I think I started the last discussion on this, so I'll wade in! >> Driveways are a bit of a nightmare - there are lots that don't fit >> neatly into one bucket or another. >> >> We did agree that service=driveway, driveway=pipestem was better than >> service=pipestem. >> >> It's probably 6 of one, half a dozen of the other as to whether the ones >> below are all shared driveways. Some could equally be classified as >> private residential roads. >> >> But they could all do with a clean up, one way or the other! >> >> cheers >> Tom >> ---- >> Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning >> Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com >> >> On 15/03/2022 9:22 pm, Dian Ågesson wrote: >> > >> > >> > Hi Seb! >> > >> > The last time this came up on the mailing list >> > (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2021-September/015014.html) >> > >> > most people seemed to approve of the following mapping: >> > >> > highway=service >> > >> > service=driveway >> > >> > driveway=pipestem >> > >> > Dian >> > >> > On 2022-03-15 20:16, Sebastian Azagra via Talk-au wrote: >> > >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Had a query regarding the mapping of driveways / shared driveways as >> >> there seems to be quite a number of different approaches in the data. >> >> Below are three examples of similar ways that have different tags used >> >> in each instance. >> >> >> >> Highway=service >> >> Service= driveway >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/818426144 >> >> >> >> Highway=Residential >> >> Service= driveway >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/184844142#map=18/-38.00126/145.27585 >> >> >> >> Highway=residential >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429541974 >> >> >> >> Reading the OSM wiki, none of these ways are correctly mapped as they >> >> are all shared driveways that leads from a road. my understanding that >> >> they need to be tagged as follows: >> >> >> >> Highway=service >> >> Service= Pipestem >> >> >> >> Would be interested in knowing your thoughts. >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> >> Sebastian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Talk-au mailing list >> >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Talk-au mailing list >> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
