I think an additional tag is not necessary. I think is is sufficient to tag them with highway=service. Remember, service=* is simply clarifying the kind of service road.
They are definitely not tracks. I remember the discussion about clarifying track grade 1 and I thought it was stretching a point. Routers should have a concept of a road hierarchy, and should "prefer" higher-classed roads (unless the user specifies otherwise). The simplest router could then make a good route by looking only at highway=*. Maxspeed, lanes, and other information can refine a route, and help make a choice between a speed-limited trunk road and a longer, but unrestricted primary road, for example. To me, the hierarchy is obvious: motorway, trunk, primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, service, residential, track. No matter what grade a track is, it should never be chosen in preference to a service road, or unclassified. Andrew On 12/07/2015, johnw <jo...@mac.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 12, 2015, at 8:07 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> What you are trying to map is a landuse rather than the highways service? >> > > Imagine you live on a farm and you’ve never seen a a big city's alley - how > would you explain why there is a narrow road next to the main road? the main > road is “too busy?” do they really need to make the road so narrow it is not > useful for much else than local access? > > In the city and suburban areas, we recognize that there is a road below > residental/unclassified, but is not a track. We call it an Alley, and define > it through highway=service & service=alley. Alleys would then connect to > driveways, tracks, and other more local access roads. > > In my extensive driving experience in rural California, OSM’s definition of > rural roads works very well. There are no rural alleys. There are service > roads for individual facilities, but not in the public/narrow/parallel > “alley” sense. > > But when mapping Rural Japan, IMO, there *is* a road grade between > unclassified/residential and Track. It is not too difficult to see them when > you live here, but it is difficult to explain. The guy mapping Korea chimed > in that it is similar there. The road network in rural ares is *as dense and > complicated* as the city to facilitate access to farm field sections or > other rural land-uses. The sections are further subdivided by > tracks/paths/driveways, like a city. I bet in other very rural, old, and > high population density countries (in Asia), this is the case too, if they > have money to maintain all of these paved roads. > > And using track+grade1 on them seems wrong. > > So I would like to formalize a rural sibling for alley. I called it > service=rural, becuase it’s counterpart is found in cities and suburbs. > > > Javbw _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
