Talk:Tag:highway=rest area

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Why can't this tag be used? Let's start using it. Currently it doesn't render in Potlatch. The name shows up along an invisible border.

Combine with parking?

Should this be combined with amenity=parking in some way? The whole idea is that you can park there, after all. UK lay-bys even get the little blue parking signage... --achadwick 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Difference? For a 'parking area' you stop to go and do something locally - shopping, theatre, etc. For a 'rest area' you stop to rest, there is not usually much to 'do' there. Warin61 (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

UK laybys are NOT the same thing

Australian rest areas (and don't forget that this page was created by an Australian) are different from UK laybys in that you will be able to sit down, and you might be able to buy some food and something that passes for beer. They're actually like informal motorway service areas.

In a UK layby you might (if you're lucky) get a bin and there might be a (presumably separately tagged) greasy spoon cafe present, but you'll be unlikely to get any other facilities. SomeoneElse 00:08, 1 April 2012 (BST)

Australian Rest Areas may not have a place to sit down, bins, drinking water nor toilet facilities let alone beer of any description. They are simply a place to pull off the road away from traffic for a rest from driving. See Others have better facilities .. but still no beer and no food! see As an Australian touring in Australia I expect little in a rest area, bonus if there is a bin, luxury if there is drinking water, 5 star for a toilet and shelter. Warin61 (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Usefull combinations

telephone=yes/no is also a useful combination. So it should be included into the proposal.

caravan=yes and caravan:condition:maxstay=24 maybe usefull in some areas. Warin61 (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For HGV only rest areas ? access=no hgv=yes might be useful too 01:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't necessarily only be an area -- but also a way, no?

After looking at the various tags available, it seems odd to me that this tag is:

  • ... marked as "de facto" under standard, considering the relatively low usage of the tag on a global display. However, I can understand that on national stages it's probably more employed, re: UK.
  • ... that ways aren't allowed, only closed ways. This seems odd to me; many, many rest areas (at least in Norway) are simply separate, short paths of road next to the road, sometimes separated with a barrier, and sometimes directly adjacent. If it is really recommended that this is to be closed ways only, then there's also a minor issue with the JOSM validation rules that need to be fixed as it will complain about a two overlapping highways. (Overlapping highways will occur the moment the rest area is actually physically connected to the road, and here that is the case in the majority of the cases.)

Are there any thoughts on issue #2? Issue #1 is just how I personally see it, but issue #2 bothers me somewhat more. Any other points of view?

  • There are 10000 rest_area and "only" 7000 services. Global display seems fine to me. It's De Facto I can't follow your point.
  • I don't understand how you want to map this with a way. This is an area where people take a rest, people need three-dimensional space, so this ist either tagged as an area (closed way) or as a point when the extend is unknown. I fear you see this as a type of highway? That would be wrong! The validator ist updated, I checked.--Jojo4u (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Simply because a lot of the rest areas tend to be simple roads/paths right next to the highway=*, where, as you'd imagine with highway=*, you're mapping the road for the vehicle on the highway=rest_area. Even the image used on the Wiki-page shows how the road is not a simple open area, but a way running parallell to the highway. Thus, I disagree that this is only an area. A way next to the road can be equally much a resting area way for the vehicle. Would you propose that there's a highway=rest_area for the area and a highway=service for the path within it, even when the road itself is only the section that is highway=service?
  • Regarding the validator, you are correct in that it is updated now. That was not the case when I added this section to the talk page.
Messy Unicorn (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I understand you say that the whole area is often not larger than the road leading through it. You want to map the whole thing as a simple way without highway=service? Like way this wrongly tagged example? Highway=rest_area is no defined type of highway! No router will lead you over it. It should be tagged amenity=rest_area. The usage of the highway key (brought over from highway=services) is an anachronism from the dawn of OSM. A proposal to define highway=rest_area as a type of highway will fail - i can assure you. The workaround: If it's that small you might map the highway=service and then highway=rest_area as a point.--Jojo4u (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we can agree on something there: highway=rest_area would be better suited as amenity=rest_area. The minor problem lies in how it's not just any rest area, but specifically a rest area / pause area / small area next to a highway, which isn't necessarily a general rest area, but specifically tied to the highway in its purpose and intent. That's why I do, indeed, want to map the thing like in way your example way. Since indeed JOSM doesn't complain when the ways overlap though, I don't mind mapping with highway=rest_area and area=yes too much now, but it'd still seem somewhat more relatable to have a highway=service going through the area however. Messy Unicorn (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I disagree on 'amenity'. Everything can be seen as an 'amenity' .. should everything be moved to the key amenity? No, it is a feature of and for a highway. Map the road as highway=service, then use highway=rest_area to signify the rest area itself. Warin61 (talk) 22:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Time Limits

Where a time limit exists, e.g. to stop people camping, then rest_area:condition:maxstay=24 could be used to indicate the maximum stay interval. Warin61 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

HGV only access

Where the rest area is for HGV only then access=no with hgv=yes could be used. Warin61 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)