From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@JaLooNz: - "The general definition of driveway has its' roots in the California legislature since 1971. This definition is used to describe all minor service roads that services motor vehicles." are you sure?

It has been discussed and linked in service=driveway discussion. You can check for yourself in the legislature. --JaLooNz (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

What about Tag:service=emergency_access, Tag:service=drive-through, Tag:service=alley? Is it also considered to be driveway in such definition and something that you want to replace by service=driveway2? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Based on the language, it is considered as a type of driveways. However, you may have missed the part on "...except in cases where other service tags more accurately define the function of the way." --JaLooNz (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but justification for driveway2 use instead of driveway is that it follows some legal decision from California. But it then ignores it anyway. Can you point to any road that would be tagged as service=driveway2 and would not be tagged as service=driveway and would be useful to tag as a driveway? What is the point of that tag? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It is clear from previous discussion that driveway2 has different definition from driveway, which led to the need for a second definition of driveway which users may use for tagging but would not satisfy the definition of Tag:highway=service (no classification of service road type) or the combination of Tag:highway=service and Tag:service=driveway. You are now contradicting yourself in saying that these two tags have the same definition, and thus there is no need for such a tag.
Which previous discussion? Can you point to any road that would be tagged as service=driveway2 and would not be tagged as service=driveway and would be useful to tag as a driveway? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It has already been linked in the post above, under discussion "Removal on restrictions on service=driveway tagging". There are two problematic areas in the former definition arising from Wiki edits in 2017, (1) driveway refers to minor service roads linking to property, whereas driveway2 refers to minor service roads linking to other service road categories (not strictly property only, which includes parking aisles). (2) A specific exclusion introduced in 2017 excludes tagging of entry ways to parking aisles and recommend to tag only as a minor road, despite the fact that it is still a driveway. Driveway2 resolves this contradiction by tagging an Apple (actual value) as an Apple (actual value), instead of tagging an Apple (actual value) as Fruit (un-categorised value).An example of a changeset where people referred to the post-2017 edits is linked here, where detailed driveway tagging was removed in favour of generic minor road tagging because of the above 2 points.--JaLooNz (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is silly. It should either be deleted, or moved to the creating user's private name space and not live alongside actual features. --Woodpeck (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This tag proposal addresses a need for a generic service=* way type for motor vehicles, which allows service ways without the service=* to be further classified and not left in an un-deterministic state without service=* definition, similar to how StreetComplete is used to add the sub-classifiers. It is unfortunate that the driveway tag was already used for residential driveways, and thus it cannot be used for this purpose. However, it does not mean that this proposal is silly as this definition is definitely a valid definition and application of driveway. [Thesaurus likewise is unable to provide an alternative definition of driveway, and is the reason why driveway2 is required]( Your response shows that not much thought has been given into understanding the need for this.--JaLooNz (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@JaLooNz: I'm not normally one to insist that the proposal process be followed strictly, but service=* is an important enough key that any novel value definitely would not be sustainable in the long term without a formal proposal, whether or not it comes to a vote. You are asking the community to accept a change to a longstanding definition of one of the most commonly tagged and commonly consumed features in the database (highway=service), but not really asking, just putting facts on the ground because others have already come out in disagreement. There's no better way to torpedo a tagging idea. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The line on the (service=driveway) page that actually causes the problem in the first place didn't even go through any discussion on the talk page, nor any formal proposal process and yet was accepted. As contrasted to the previous change, I believe we have already gone through more of the process as compared to that change, and have agreed to not touch the (highway=service) and (service=driveway) pages. This page here is simply meant to document tag use (and why the tag is being used this way) as per the recommendations, and to describe why this is necessary. I disagree with deprecation as no better proposal is available, and against deletion as this goes against the principals of documenting tag use. In fact, everything on the page is describing how the tag is used and origins, and there is no need to mention who uses those tags (do we even see these on any other pages?) as these can be obtained via taginfo. The topic has been discussed by identifying the problem, proposed solution(s) for a better fix to the service=* classification issue, and yet all I can see is denial and objection without inputs to properly fix the issue by properly discussing a solution. This only illustrates how the OSM community operates and behaves - just brush off proper discussions and retain status quo.--JaLooNz (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@JaLooNz: As I have already explained, the line you are referring to was copy-pasted from somewhere else on the wiki to keep the wiki consistent. Perhaps the person who did so should have provided an edit summary, but they are not to blame for eschewing the tag proposal process. The current definition of service=driveway is consistent with how the tag had been defined for many years, years in which OSM has gained significant usage among renderers and routers. Backwards compatibility is a practical concern.

It's a historical accident that highway=service and service=driveway became entrenched without going through the proposal process. I'm suggesting the proposal process as an opportunity for you to constructively work with the community on a solution. The alternative would be for your efforts to come to naught. I have already sided with you in support for more service=* values in principle, so let's work from that common understanding instead of escalating the conflict. Maybe we can convince others of the necessity for new tags too.

Some tags, especially those with "in use" and "de facto" status, do have "History" and "Rationale" sections because there isn't a proposal page to provide that context. I have been active in adding these sections on a variety of pages, most of them thankfully less contentious than this one. It isn't my intention to single you out any more than you've already done. The page's history section doesn't name anyone in particular, nor does it cite an Overpass query that would've made it quite obvious who the predominant user of the tag is. But the fact that there is one predominant user of the tag, who introduced it in the midst of a dispute, is notable and relevant.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Woodpeck and Richard: Unless the 3,000-odd ways are retagged, I think redirecting to a proposal or changing the status to deprecated would be more helpful than deleting the page at this point. Otherwise, people are going to stumble upon one of the ways and wonder what it's all about, as apparently already happened in Discord. [1] – Minh Nguyễn 💬 18:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

minor local roads

If I understand the intention of this tag correctly, it is intended to differentiate between service roads that actually don't fall in one of the more specialized categories and those where no one has gotten around to add a service tag yet. First, I don't think this is needed: Most data users would treat a service-less service road like a service road with a tag that indicates it is connecting to even smaller more specialized service roads like parking aisles. And if a service tag has simply been forgotten, it will be added by someone eventually. The only possible benefit I see is to give some peace of mind to mappers that don't like unfilled fields in forms. Second, if we decide we actually want an extra service value for those roads, please don't name it service=driveway2 because that sounds silly. Name it something like service=access instead. --Lyx (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in essence service=* should be an implicit service=unclassified instead of an implicit service=driveway. The formal service=driveway can be more correctly described as service=residential_driveway, but as we are not changing that definition one will need to introduce another tag for the general classifier which is this proposal. service=driveway2 is a temporary solution to avoid users removing classifier tags, and as such I am open to renaming it to other definitions such as service=access.--JaLooNz (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please stop claiming that service=driveway is defined in a way that strictly limits it to residential driveways. That isn't what Tag:service=driveway has ever said. If you want to eliminate situations where service=* should be omitted, then the next step is to write a formal proposal for something palatable to replace it with and solicit feedback about the proposal. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

How it differs from service=driveway

"definition differs from the service=driveway definition which defines a minor service road leading to a specific property"

Current definition of this tag claims "road providing access from the highway to an offstreet area used for driving, servicing, parking, or otherwise accommodating motor vehicles". Can anyone provide examples of cases where something is driveway and does not match service=driveway definition? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Without trying to speak for those who favor this tag, some U.S. dialects of English informally consider "driveway" to mean any off-street roadway, essentially any highway=service, while other U.S. dialects distinguish between "driveway" (in the classic sense) and "access road". Where there's a more specific term, such as "drive-through" or "parking aisle", people would gravitate towards those terms (though an "aisle" technically includes both the driveway and its parking spaces). Where we really run into trouble is parking lot entrances and the main circulatory roads around or through a parking lot. As far as I can tell, there's no fixed expression for these road types in any dialect of English, even in engineering jargon, although the Waze community calls them "parking lot roads". For almost as long as I've been mapping, I've seen American mappers gravitate toward service=driveway for these roads, for lack of a better term, which causes headaches for renderers and routers. But if we could come up with intuitive names for non-driveway driveways, then I'm sure they'd find acceptance as an alternative to overloading or forking driveway.

That said, I'm pretty sure actual service=driveway2 usage defies even a California English definition after discounting accidental typos.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 02:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)