highway=service + living_street=yes paint over as highway=living_street

[zlant]

Expected behavior

highway=service + living_street=yes paint over as highway=living_street

Added: change only the color, but not the width

Actual behavior

highway=service + living_street=yes paint over as highway=residential

Links and screenshots illustrating the problem

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/living_street=yes#combinations

[kocio-pl]

Thanks for reporting. Could you show the location (link) where the problem is visible and possibly post an image showing it?

[jeisenbe]

I would think that highway=living_street or highway=service alone would be the correct tagging? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice says highway=service is for streets or roads that access one property or building, and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:service does no mention service=living_street

…

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 6:43 AM kocio-pl ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks for reporting. Could you show the location (link) where the problem is visible and possibly post an image showing it? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3514 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshMLBLm-nGOsRwbO57LP34ZDfWEkqks5uveAKgaJpZM4YiTaf> .

[kocio-pl]

I have never heard of that. Looks like it was proposed long time ago and this proposition is described here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:living_street%3Dyes

However it is being really used since then:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:living_street

[Adamant36]

[Adamant36]

[HolgerJeromin]

I think this should be discussed in Tagging ML.
Indeed this small driveway would look nicer in gray:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464614013

I would "allow" it only for lower class (than living street) highways like service.

[dieterdreist]

Am Fr., 16. Nov. 2018 um 12:50 Uhr schrieb Holger Jeromin < notifications@github.com>:

I think this should be discussed in Tagging ML. Indeed this small driveway would look nicer in gray: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/464614013 I would "allow" it only for lower class (than living street) highways like service.

from a German point of view, a living street is a public road, while a driveway is not, so it doesn't seem to make sense to put a living street property on a private driveway. I agree that the rendering of living streets is not the most beautiful possible solution, but extending the living street on private ways doesn't seem correct either.

[polarbearing]

Indeed this small driveway would look nicer in gray

Why would we determine the colour of a driveway depending on the adjacent road?

[zlant]

I will add that I propose to change only the color, but not the width.

Place example: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DK9

[polarbearing]

Could you upload a picture how the roads look in reality and how they are signposted?

[mboeringa]

I agree that the rendering of living streets is not the most beautiful possible solution, but extending the living street on private ways doesn't seem correct either.

I don't understand the point, there is highway=service, service=driveway for that case, with clearly described Wiki pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dservice
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:service%3Ddriveway

from a German point of view, a living street is a public road

The same in the Netherlands, and I would never tag a private driveway to a property as highway=living_street, instead use the above tagging.

I do not like the concept of living_street=yes as described by that old Wiki page. I think this is a poor tagging scheme. If we follow the instructions on that page, even a highway=motorway could get the additional living_street=yes, which is ridiculous ("Extend the concept of highway=living_street to any highway=* tag.": https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:living_street%3Dyes)

I have the feeling this page was introduced before landuse=residential came into being, so as to have some way to describe a road that runs through a residential area. The proposal is from 2009 after all.

[zlant]

@polarbearing

[polarbearing]

There is unambiguous signposting that cars and peds share the road, so it's highway=living_street.

[HolgerJeromin]

from a German point of view, a living street is a public road

Living Street in Germany defines an area (signed only at the beginning), not street itself. So every (non foot/cycle only) road has the same legal restrictions.

[polarbearing]

I think he meant, independent from the shape, that the living street is a public entity, while the driveway is a private one, to which the Ruled of the Road do not apply. Therefore tagging the private driveway as living_street=yes is pointless.

[geozeisig]

Timmendorfer Strand is a good example that a whole village can be a living street area. At the entrance there is only one sign.

The service roads that are now white should also be gray. This is only possible if you additionally add the tag living_street=yes. The same traffic rules apply to service roads, which also apply to parking rules.

[jeisenbe]

What makes those streets in Timmendorfer Strand service roads rather than highway=residential or =living_street? Are they maintained by the owners of nearby houses / apartments rather than by the local government? Are they alleys, or driveways, or something different? I think of service roads as being private roads, maintained by individuals or companies, rather than public highways. But this may be an American idea.

…

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 3:57 PM geozeisig ***@***.***> wrote: Timmendorfer Strand is a good example that a whole village can be a living street area. At the entrance there is only one sign. [image: timmendorfer strand] <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/17127509/48658158-2f2a3500-ea3d-11e8-9503-6d0ce68ba434.jpg> The service roads that are now white should also be gray. This is only possible if you additionally add the tag living_street=yes. The same traffic rules apply to service roads, which also apply to parking rules. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3514 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AoxshPVBoWX1OBnr30hl4CiyzhO_W-24ks5uv7NFgaJpZM4YiTaf> .

[dieterdreist]

sent from a phone

On 16. Nov 2018, at 21:44, Holger Jeromin ***@***.***> wrote: from a German point of view, a living street is a public road Living Street in Germany defines an area (signed only at the beginning), not street itself. So every (non foot/cycle only) road has the same legal restrictions.

exactly: road, a private driveway isn’t a road. All the roads within that zone are highway=living_street in osm.

[polarbearing]

I propose to close this issue as rejected, i.e. not rendering living_street=yes

[jragusa]

The proposal is marked as abandonned on the wiki page so agree to close this issue

[Adamant36]

It doesn't seem like the numbers on it are increasing either. Plus, highway=living_street, which is already rendered, is a more "proper" tag. We shouldn't encourage bad/abandoned tagging. So I third the issue being closed.

[matkoniecz]

From wiki edits it seems that living_street=yes is at best disputed by some. Is anybody planning to start discussion about this tag on OSM wiki or tagging mailing list?

[Adamant36]

Going by the wiki it seems its an add-on to other roads to designate that they are mixed use of whatever+living_street. So, IMO there wouldn't be a practical way to render it anyway. Since rendering something like a liner residential road a completely different way because it is tagged with living_street=yes just doesn't seem doable or worth it. The same idea got shot down for showing if a road is lit or not.

[polarbearing]

It was discussed on talk-de and unanimously disagreed with.
So far I have not seen a valid example where it would be needed. The only examples were private driveways, to which the road rules about living street don't apply, with the reason given that a unique colour would be nicer.
I'm in favour of the map being correct.

[matkoniecz]

In that case I will close it for now. It may be reopened in case of evidence that this tagging is considered as a good one.

[matkoniecz]

And please do not discuss here whatever this tagging is a good idea or not. Do it on OSM wiki/tagging mailing list and leave here at most a link.

[tjur0]

Could this be reopened? I think that living_street=yes + highway=service has many valid use cases, one of which is parking aisles inside of living street areas:

[imagico]

This continues to be a field without consensus on tagging among mappers. Specifically here: There is no consensus that what you would like to tag highway=service + living_street=yes is not to be tagged highway=living_street. We do not want to influence consensus building by endorsing a specific, contested tagging scheme. But please: No discussion of this here, do that in a different venue.

What we are considering is not rendering highway=living_street in a unique color any more - unifying it either with highway=pedestrian or highway=residential. See #3891 and #3961. Given that a substantial number of mappers seems to consider living street frequently to be a secondary attribute of roads rather than a primary highway class this might be a good idea.

We also have an open issue #214 on better differentiation of roads according to access restrictions secondary to the main road types, in other words: We definitely would like to provide better feedback on differentiation of roads according to access restrictions (based on well established tags with consensus support and clear meaning - where living_street=yes currently does not fit in though).