Talk:Tag:highway=residential

Implies

Does this tag really imply that there are sidewalks/footways on both sides of the way? It has been stated on Proposed_features/Advanced_footway_and_cycleway under "Tagging" -> "Define what kinds of ways there are". --Mikalaari 10:35, 15 December 2009

The last time it was discussed on the mailing lists, no one seemed to object to the notions that we really can't tell which implication (none vs. both) is more often correct, and data consumers need to consider them as sidewalk=unknown. You can definitively walk on residential roads, unless tagged otherwise, but without extra ways (the sidewalks) or suitable tags you just don't know whether there's a dedicated sidewalk/footway available. Alv 14:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

use on relations

"Note: tagging street relations with this tag may be problematic, including for a single street in a single city, as the street relation may have residential sections and other sections classified as primary, secondary, tertiary or unclassified. Don't use this tag on route relations for public transports, or relations created only for addresses (such as associatedStreet). In such case it remains preferable to tag only the individual ways instead of having conflicting tags between the relation and ways. Tag relations only if the tag applies to all member ways." was added in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:highway%3Dresidential&diff=1439790&oldid=1439253

At the same time page is not explaining how this tag may be used on relations and page indicates that it is not supposed to be used for relations. It seems not necessary to mention that using it for some specific relations is also not necesary Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The relations that may be needed for addresses (i.e. type=associatedStreet) contain various segments (role=street) with different highway=* types (including footways, paths or tracks), and address nodes (role=house).

However the use on relation is for something else: pedestrian areas that have a consistant type=pedestrian and must also be tagged with area=yes. This is the most frequent case I know where a relation may be needed, and this relation will be a member of an associatedStreet relation (also with role=street) and with other address nodes (role=house).

But may be we'll have relations for areas that are on water (canals, rivers, lakes, ponds, sea) and where the water area relation is acting as street within an a associatedStreet relation (i.e. addresses are for floatting residences).

— Verdy_p ^(talk) 00:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

does highway=residential imply usability of any motor_vehicle?

In small or remote settlements (e.g mountain areas, small islands) where the roads commonly accessed by foot, or maybe concessional motorcycles, is it alright to tag the highways as residential because they're used to access the residential area?

On small islands, perhaps their main means of transport or access to the "main land" might be by boat.

--GOwin (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@GOwin: Not sure about motorcycle-only access, but if access is foot only then it is not highway=residential. Similarly, ferry routes or boat routes are definitely not highway=residential Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

If you think the pedestrian-only street is too big to be a highway=footway, then see highway=pedestrian. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Do the arguments above therefore imply that a highway=residential has to have a minimum width=*? --Bierphysik (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines for "in town" confusion

The current "in town" guidelines are confusing to me. Are we really saying use highway=residential, rather than highway=unclassified, even when there are no residential buildings adjacent to the road just because it is located inside a town? Also, why should the presence of traffic calming measures convert an unclassified road into a residential road if there aren't any residential buildings on it? Perhaps there is some country-specific conventions going on here? At least in the UK, residential roads should only be for roads that have no other purpose than serving residential areas. Other roads in towns that don't fit into a higher classification should be tagged as unclassified. Casey boy (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be referring to cases where there is a gap like https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.06516&mlon=19.89612#map=17/50.06516/19.89612 without houses at this specific stretch Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Your example makes sense. When there's just a stretch of the road without residential buildings, it can still be a residential road. It's probably just a wording issue with the current documentation. I'll see if I can improve to ensure the emphasis remains on it being in a residential area. Casey boy (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few changes to the opening, hopefully to improve clarity. Casey boy (talk) 15:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we need an equivalent value that isn't limited to homes?

It seems that there is a major and longstanding gap between highway=residential and highway=unclassified . Specifically roads/streets that meet all characteristics of highway=residential except that the surrounding properties aren't homes, but also differ from the more broad category of British "U" roads as they don't connect the overall road network at all, they are merely the destination roads/streets on which non-homes are located or reached . This new or redefined tag value would cover things like the following:

• A road in a city that contains only business, government and amenities such as a road wedged between a government office building (former royal palace) and a public leisure park (former palace gardens), or a road in a pure business district where every building is an office, factory or shop.
• A good quality rural road connecting a group of farm buildings (stables, barns, tractor parking, small farms) to the highway between villages (which might be anything from highway=primary to highway=unclassified as a matter of chance).

The new or redefined tag value would not cover the following that would remain highway=unclassified:

• A road connecting entire villages to each other or the numbered public roads, but itself too unimportant to officially be a highway=tertiary road .
• A busy traffic artery through a city, yet formally not part of the national road system .

This new or redefined tag value would imply the same rules for things like speed limits and parking as are currently implied by highway=residential where such implications exist in the data model .

Jbohmdk (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The gap is real, but highway=unclassified isn't the obvious fix — that tag has a UK-origin meaning of "minor through-route without an official classification number", not a catch-all for local non-residential streets. Using it as a catch-all is community drift, not definition. highway=service could theoretically work but carries a strong "non-public" stigma in practice, even though service=alley proves that's not inherent. Some mappers just use highway=residential on paved non-residential local streets pragmatically, which is semantically wrong but understandable. highway=road is too entrenched as "classification unknown/pending" to repurpose without breaking QA tooling. Honestly, this is more a governance problem than a tagging gap — every region has its own highway=* boundary interpretation, and global consensus on a new value seems unrealistic. A regional tagging guideline is probably more achievable. --julcnx (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)