Mapping street areas should not use [highway=*; area=yes] - [area:highway=*] is much better.
highway=pedestrian, highway=footway for squares are special cases as square may and typically is traversed using any route. Also some [highway=service; area=yes] fit (some parkings and similar places) as it is OK to drive in any direction. That is not a case for highway=motorway/.../tertiary/.../cycleway/.. (at least normal ones, there are probably some weird places). 2015-03-30 17:02 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć <daniel@koć.pl>: > Lately I was trying to rethink our general tagging schemes and came up > with the impression that areas half-designed part of OSM tagging system. > > IMO we have 2 problems with it: small one in microscale and a big one in > macroscale, but most probably we can deal with them separately. > > *** > > In microscale we have some common uses of area=yes tag as area hint, like > with highway=footway, highway=pedestrian or highway=service. But I think we > also need some other like (a) highway=cycleway + area=yes or (b) > highway=crossing + area=yes (both are quite easy to extend) and more > complicated, but highly needed (c) street area scheme like in > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area . > > We won't see the issue just looking at the taginfo usage statistics: > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/area=yes#combinations > > but it's easy to understand there's something wrong with having some > popular area types being tagged and rendered as such, while some other are > still considered just a point or a line. And it's not the future, it's > already here at z19 (z18 is still rather fine) - for example some streets > can be even 4 times wider than on default rendering (see the holes between > footways and the streets at http://www.openstreetmap.org/# > map=19/52.23171/21.02082 )! > > *** > > Macroscale is harder, because general hierarchy of tags is treated as > given and I think we need to fix this hierarchy a bit. The problem is best > visible when compared to buildings and I already wrote about it on Talk > list, so let me quote relevant parts: > > "That's what we have now (forgetting the buildings functions issue for a > moment): > > amenity=school & building=school > landuse=religious & building=church > landuse=industrial/man_made=works & building=industrial (?) > > and I see the pattern like this: > > area=school & building=school > area=religious & building=church > area=industrial/works & building=works > > Just "area" instead of "amenity/landuse/man_made/..." hell - isn't it > easier and more elegant?" > > "You can spot a building and you know what the rules are: > > 1. The key will be always "building" - not anything else (like "house" or > "architecture"). > 2. If you don't know anything more about it, "yes" is safe, general value > you can always choose (and if you know the form, you are welcome to choose > something specific). > > What if we could have the same level of clearness for areas? For example > natural=wood vs landuse=forest - you see the area covered with trees and: > > 1. You are not sure what the key should be (is it maintained or not?). > 2. You have no safe general value, because "wood" implies "natural" key > - but again: you may not know if it's really not maintained. > > "Area=trees" might be the kind of close analogy to "building=yes" in such > cases. BTW: it's still available ( > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area#values ) and such use isn't > even disallowed in the light of our current documentation ( > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:area )." > > [ https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2015-March/072375.html ] > > *** > > What do you think about both micro- and macroscale changes in scope of > areas? > > -- > Piaseczno Miasto Wąskotorowe > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
