Talk:Key:verge

Must the verge be vegetation

I've previously mapped concrete verges, where the sidewalk/footpath is marked out and there they left a concrete buffer between the marked sidewalk/footpath and the roadway. I think the tag should be any buffer space which doesn't form part of the sidewalk/footpath. --Aharvey (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a question I have, too - there are other types of separation between sidewalks and roadways, such as simple paved areas, outdoor seating areas for restaurants, parking zones.

I think it's probably best to keep "verge" as specifically referring to green(ish)spaces, and put those other types as values of a different key. Lumikeiju (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Even if the wiki says "Presence of grass or other vegetation verges at the sides of a highway carriageway", it seems to show (in that "A85" example picture with car parked on it) the gravel surface with no vegetation? So it a verge=yes or not? --mnalis (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

File:A85_east_of_Crianlarich_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1542387.jpg Wikimedia actually describes it as "wide road verge". I have only noticed grass & dirt (on the right of the gravelM) before you mentioned this. I thought the whole gravel + grass & dirt side is the verge. Technically and officially, as there's a hard strip, it would be considered part of the verge, while OSM could discuss whether it qualifies as a "soft shoulder" functionally (but this would necessitate handling both the hard strip and this "soft strip" in shoulder:*=* / expanded shoulders tagging).
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Outdoors seatings would still be part of the sidewalks physically, only not the walking part. Those parking are on the roadway. Again, need some illustration on what "simple paved areas" are.
You are looking for traffic_mode:*=parking etc Proposal:Separation
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you link to photos of this situation?
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I captured some images of different separation types recently - here's an example of what I mean by "simple paved area" (Mapillary). From left to right, there's clear indications of frontage zone, pedestrian pathway, and "verge". --Lumikeiju (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

All of them are still part of the sidewalk physically. The functional 3-zone concept is independent of the sidewalk=* vs verge=* question.
—— Kovposch (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kovposch: On Mapillary here due to the painted lines for the shared foot/bicycle path and the trees I'd consider the concrete area between the painted line and the gutter (curb) as the nature strip (verge) even though it's concrete. Although I don't feel too strongly about it, you could also say it's still path of the footpath (sidewalk) and not the nature strip (verge). Aharvey (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

These would be landscaping & street furniture zones, but not verges. They are individual tree pits on the sidewalk. There's a few man_made=tree_pit , same as how putting some man_made=planter on the sidewalk doesn't make them verges. Verges should be somewhat continuous.
—— Kovposch (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's only a verge if it's unpaved, and if it's paved it's not a verge? Aharvey (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I was asked to give some feedback on this question, but I'm at a bit of a loss, since my regional dialect doesn't know of "verges", only "berms" or "curb strips" or "tree lawns" or maybe "devil's strips". I currently live in an arid region where many verges are barren dirt or rock. I guess you could consider it xeriscaped. At a glance, the Pacific Highway example looks to me like another part of the sidewalk. There's definitely nothing "lawn" about it, but maybe you could make a case for it being devilish. If I were mapping an area:highway=footway footway=sidewalk, it would include the spaces between the tree wells, even though the highway=footway footway=sidewalk ways ignore them. And if I came across a street where the tree wells go down the middle of the sidewalk, then I'd map two sidewalk ways with a bunch of little perpendicular sidewalk ways connecting them. On the other hand, if there's a change in grade, a hardscaped space that's lower than the sidewalk and roadway, then I would consider it a verge, because it forms a barrier in the same manner that a landscaped verge might. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Illustrations

These annotated photos should clarify more, both are the landscaping & furniture & services zone (with a 4th edge/kerb zone distinguished) https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/webinar_dps_080310_2.pdf

• verge=yes https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/webinar_dps_080310_2.pdf#page=40
• verge=no https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/webinar_dps_080310_2.pdf#page=41

—— Kovposch (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, some good examples there. Aharvey (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a good resource. Thanks for sharing.
I think this "four-zone" approach between the roadway and building makes sense:
1. The curb zone
2. The furniture/planter/buffer zone
3. The pedestrian/walking zone
4. The frontage zone

So a "verge/planting strip" is generally a type of furniture/planter/buffer zone filling.
Of those terms, "buffer" is the most generic, so that's probably what the key should reference.

Would buffer=yes/no/separate (applies to the main non-footway/cycleway/path highway=* ways) make sense? Defined as:
"The buffer=* tag is used to indicate the presence of separation between a highway=* and an associated footway=sidewalk or similar sidepath."
Then, to refine it, on the highway=* you could add:
- buffer:width=* (ex. buffer:width=2 m) for width.
- buffer:type=* (ex. buffer:type=verge/paved/outdoor_seating/???)
As for the tags on a separately-mapped buffer zone:
- highway=buffer is one option, though I believe expanding highway=* is not ideal, so please suggest alternatives. man_made=buffer? area:highway=buffer?
+ buffer:type=* as above.

This is obviously leaning towards a proposal, which I would be happy to introduce. UW Amy Bordenave (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I stumbled across some existing documentation around Parklets - we'll need to see how the buffer=* and verge=* intersect with these...

I also want to mention my continued favor of "sidedness" tags, which I would add as suffixes to buffer=* tags on highway=*s, ex. buffer:right=yes, buffer:right:width=2 m

We may be able to take some cues from the extensive Street parking schema... UW Amy Bordenave (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

cycleway:buffer=* is currently defined to be flat traversable pavement only. This will need to be expanded. *:type=* is a meaningless suffix, so should use buffer:right=* directly when it has no other uses
buffer:*=outdoor_seating conflicts with this, and separation:*=* . Needs to be discussed with that author. I would agree to move non-raised obstacles to buffer:*=* (eg separation:*=ditch , which can further be considered to be buffer:*=water / buffer:*=waterway ), and keep only raised obstacles in separation:*=* . This would allow eg buffer:right=waterway + separation:right=no to show risk of falling to water channel. Proposal:Separation
However for buffer:*=verge specifically, redundancy should be avoided. The attributes should be stored as buffer:right=verge + verge=right + verge:right:width=* to follow existing practice.
area:highway=buffer again has the same problem with cycleway:buffer=* , for conflicting definition with a suggested solution for hatched areas, flush median, channelization, etc. Needs to be coordinated and solved together. Proposal_talk:Street_area#area:highway=emergency
For area:highway=* itself, A leisure=parklet or leisure=outdoor_seating would already be inside an area:highway=footway , and there should be area:highway=verge to be follow area:highway=shoulder. Not ideal to create nesting or overlapping area:highway=* again. I would simply add eg reused buffer=yes to show it's a buffer. This would be implied on a area:highway=verge , and not necessary there.
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be defining the entire area between the curb and the building (so the curb zone, buffer zone, pedestrian zone, and frontage zone) to be part of the area:highway=footway, right? Whereas I would view only the "pedestrian zone" as the area:highway=footway. I think that's a blocker right now for us to make sense of how to tag these spaces. UW Amy Bordenave (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you discussing the typical urban or suburban/rural layout? At least I would use area:highway=footway when it's the same walking surface.
If it's part of the sidewalk, area:highway=footway + footway=sidewalk should continue to be used. When different parts of it needs to be split and distinguished, better create another attribute. Applications can easily evaluate it's a sidewalk by a single equality. For processing, this allows adjoining area:highway=footway + footway=sidewalk to be easily dissolved and simplified into one sidewalk polygon, when the application doesn't need the details of different parts.
When your suggestion includes verge=* , not all area:highway=buffer would be part of a sidewalk. On sidewalk=no + verge=yes roads, there would be this area:highway=* on its own. Then this will presumably need to be detected by a spatial query, not efficient and practical on-the-fly, requiring preprocessing. If eg adding sidewalk=yes is suggested to show it's part of a sidewalk, that's basically reinventing area:highway=footway + footway=sidewalk again, when the opposite solution of using a new attribute to distinguish sidewalk parts would be easier.
—— Kovposch (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

This reminds me of the age-old debate about whether an amenity=parking area should hug the parking spaces or the overall paved area – and what to do if the parking lot is only partially paved or only partially marked out. I lean towards a more expansive parking area, because it encodes information that an envelope of parking spaces does not. So I guess by analogy I would also shape a area:highway=* to include negative and neutral paved space. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't imagine a verge being a nature reserve

Resolved: After editing, the page no longer references leisure=nature_reserve as of 2025-05-05 --UW Amy Bordenave (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

According to leisure=nature_reserve,

a protected area of importance for wildlife, flora, fauna or features of geological or other special interest. In many of them the public is invited to visit in order to enjoy this features. Such areas are reserved and managed for conservation and to provide special opportunities for study or research. Nature reserves may be designated by government institutions in some countries, or by private landowners, such as charities and research institutions.[1] They may offer amenities such as parking, restrooms, interpretive signage, guided tours and/or a visitor center. Human activity permitted in these areas is often limited to walking on designated foot paths.

I can't see how a verge could possibly be a nature reserve, I think we should not be recommending this tag. --Aharvey (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I kept that leisure=nature_reserve tag mainly because it was there in the previous version of the page. The Wikipedia article for verges also goes out of its way to highlight these spaces as, in at least some regions, intentionally designated for ecological conservation. I agree, though, that "Nature Reserve" generally implies a larger (usually named?) area. Is there a similar tag you know of, that would apply to these smaller areas while also spotlighting that they're managed in an intentional way? Lumikeiju (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems mistranslated from the concept of road reserve, environmental buffer, or green space. I don't see what part of Wiki you are reading. Vegetation being ecological valuable doesn't mean it's designated as such separately. They are still considered as part of the road corridor by the highway authority. leisure=nature_reserve needs to be an officially protected area.
—— Kovposch (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Which highway to tag?

Should verges (as a property of a highway=*) be tagged on the roadway or the sidewalk? Lumikeiju (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

For simplicity, best kept on the highway=* road only. If someone wants to evaluate the quality of a footway=sidewalk , the road should be associated and analyzed together anyway, eg number of lanes=* and maxspeed=* foremost
This could be considered together with tree_lined=* . To determine shade, this should really be processed and cached, not detected by equality on the feature on-the-fly. Let alone the fact tree_lined=* is not as common as drawing the natural=tree_row only.
—— Kovposch (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I had always thought of it as a tag for highway=primary,secondary,... never really considered on highway=footway, if you do both I guess it's not harmful just can lead to one value being updated but not the other. Agreed with @Kovposch: that data consumers will need to match up the footway=sidewalk with the road for many uses. Aharvey (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)