Am 02.11.2016 um 20:01 schrieb Tijmen Stam:
On 02-11-16 19:33, Hubert87 wrote:
Hi,
I think you should consider the access rights (access=no, bus=yes) and
the road classification (highway=service/unclassified) as two separate
things.
First, I'm not proposing something new, I'm proposing to formalize (by
documenting on the wiki) a practice that is already widespread, namely
to tag busways as highway=service.
Worldwide there seems to be a very large preference of highway=service
for busways over highway=unclassified.
From taginfo:
highway=service + bus=yes = 16040
highway=service + psv=yes = 35658
highway=unclassified + bus=yes = 1535
highway=unclassified + psv=yes = 5707
Those are not small numbers.
Highway=service in any kind of busway appears to be over 7 times as
abundant as highway=unclassified, even if this is an undocumented in
the wiki.
In contrast : about one seventh of cases are tagged as
highway=unclassified. That's a lot in osm.
Apparently it "feels natural" to more people to tag busways as
highway=service.
And they are free to do so. But there can be cases too, where a busway
is not a highway-service. Just because most sheep are white, doesn't
mean that all sheep are white. Also, we don't have highway=busway (or
highway=cyclestreet.)
That's why I'll state that it doesn't feel natural so natural for people
after all.
Ask yourself what kind of highway-tag you would use, if the road was not
limited to buses only.
In the cases I can imagine the roads themselves are usually very
specifically designed for bus use only: very hard pavement (often
concrete instead of asphalt) no hard shoulders, no guardrails, lanes
narrower than public roads for this speed. All meant to be driven only
by professional drivers. So the point of "imagining the road not being
limited to buses only" is moot;
It's not moot. It's exactly what I wanted to ask you. You just described
one specific type of busway. Who says that a busway always has to look
like that.
the road wouldn't exist if it weren't for buses.
That's a different story.
Also, did you consider using "bus/ptv=designated" instead of bus=yes?
Nope.
a) what is ptv? Typo of psv?
Yes. (I had Public Transport Vehicle in mind, not Public Service Vehicle)
b) I personally haven't used designated a lot. Looking at the above
use cases, they aren't used a lot worldwide, which is not an excuse to
not start using them. Thanks for introducing me to the tag!
It's uncommon, but fitting.
P.S.:
(btw, for clarification: last time I checked, "unclassified" isn't used
were one can't classify a road - that's what highway=road is for
I am fully aware of that.
But, your explanation if highway=unclassified needing to connect to at
least one tertiary makes the following case contradictionary:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53672494 is now mistagged as
residential. It is a busway, sandwiched between two true residential
roads. The only non-service road type that would apply here is
unclassified, yet it can't be that one as being only connected to
residentials :-)
No. Not contradictory. One should not use highway=unclassified in that
case. However "residential" could be fine; "service" could be fine( or
"road" could be fine, if you really can't decide.) But please use local
knowledge.
Tijmen / IIVQ
Hubert87
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
