On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:52 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess the “if the driveway is too long, make a part of it service”-rule is actually there to help data consumers (if it’s very long it might be worth showing it earlier, assuming you hide driveways earlier than service roads). Isn't that tagging for the renderer? > The distinction by width (wide enough for a car or only for a bike) seems a very fundamental one, it has also functional implications. On the other hand, footways and cycleways may be wide enough for a car, their tagging is mostly determined by the legal situation, (e.g. signed, in parks), and the same for their path synonyms (with *=designated), so it’s only between “non designated” path and track that width is decisive (functionally: usable by tractors or not). According to what others are saying here - if I am understanding correctly - width should have nothing to do with it (other than if the width is too narrow for certain functions). > If the driveway is too rough, it maybe isn’t a driveway any more, it will depend on the other driveways in the area what is acceptable as a driveway, and when you would consider it track, that’s why there isn’t a clear limit on a global level. This seems to contradict what Mateusz said. "Way used solely to access a private residence is always highway=service, service=driveway no matter whatever it is short, long, paved, unpaved, lit, unlit, ugly or 22 lanes wide." So you are saying that the highway=* tag depends not just on its function, not just on its physical condition, but also on its physical condition relative to the other ways in the vicinity?!
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
