Talk:Tag:surface=paving stones

Reserving the term “paving stones” for flat slabs?

I am sorry to start an argument, but as a native (British) English speaker, I would not call block pavers (or paving bricks), "paving stones". I would reserve the term "paving stones" for flat slabs, typically about 300mm x 300mm x 20mm, up to 900mm x 600mm x 30mm, made of natural stone, or concrete.

See (for example) https://pavingstonesdirect.co.uk/

Could you consider changing your tag to "surface=paved"? --PeterPan99 (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

To clarify - is it about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:PUB.DOM.DED.Pixa_AcerPics_Dec.%2717_01-12-17_Brick_street_stones_LOW_RES_(25052487258).jpg type of surface? Or some other one of what is displayed? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no scale to that picture, but (to me) it looks like "block paving" (i.e. made of blocks about the size of house bricks), so I would call that "surface=block_paved", or perhaps "surface=paved; paving=block". ...or have I missed the point of your question?--PeterPan99 (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I found an image with a clear scale - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paving_being_laid_arp.jpg - I would tag it as surface=paving_stones. And you would would call that surface=block_paved, or surface=paved + paving=block, right? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. --PeterPan99 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I posted on the tagging mailing list to look for more feedback ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging - discussion at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-January/thread.html#50116 ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Here are the pictures being discussed:

• 
• 

The first has brick-sized blocks of different gray to orange color, which look like bricks made from clay to me. The tags surface=brick and surface=bricks have been used 3000 and 4000 times each. However, it's hard to tell from a picture: perhaps these are just concrete blocks with color added to look more like brick. The second seems to show brick-shaped concrete blocks, which probably fit the current defintion. Ideally there should be a tag to distinguish between actual stone, concrete blocks and clay bricks. --Jeisenbe (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Paving_stones" includes word 'stones', not the word 'concrete'. The term is not quite accurate, though the material is similar in appearance and feel and the concrete includes stones one may say. --Plamen (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a heading for this topic so it displays neatly in the talk page's table of contents. I hope that’s okay. Just to add a thought: although I’m not a native English speaker, I still share the same uneasy feeling as the person who raised this topic in 2019 (PeterPan99?) about using the value paving_stones for all smooth stone surfaces (other than sett) where individual stones abut one another to form a patterned surface with joints. In German, the equivalent term for "paving stones" would be “Pflastersteine” (though that is also used for standard setts) or, better yet, “Verbundsteine” (interlocking pavers)—a term generally reserved for flat stones (e.g. 20 mm thick and made of various materials, but predominantly concrete pavers in familiar shapes). So, precisely not for everything with a flat surface. I would find it acceptable to use the tag for, say, irregularly shaped sandstone slabs or other natural stone (whose surface does not necessarily have to be 100% flat either), but in German, one wouldn't use the term Verbundsteine or Pflastersteine for a surface made of bricks or tiles (and certainly not for large, thick stone blocks that might make up stair steps). That said, it is often difficult to determine whether a surface is truly made of bricks or merely of flat slabs designed to mimic the look of brick. Tiles are easier to distinguish, as they usually feature a characteristically smooth ceramic surface. So, I would welcome more nuanced differentiation here (e.g., using surface=bricks/surface=tiles) rather than lumping everything into the paving_stones category (and making this distinction clear in the example photos and the text). And really massive stone blocks—the kind that can be used to construct stair steps—are a topic in their own right, I think. --Goodidea (talk) 13:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Crazy paving

When the gaps are filled and leveled, should crazy paving be paving_stones or sett?

• 
  Crazy paving with leveled gaps
• 
  Crazy paving with deep gaps

--Fernando Trebien (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Stones are also completely flat - I would use surface=paving_stones Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

In any case not surface=sett, but surface=paving_stones (and you could add paving_stones:shape=irregular). Goodidea (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Tiles

Would you consider path surfaces made of (ceramic/glazed) tiles to be surface=paving_stones? It seems wrong, somehow, but I also don't see any alternative on the wiki.

--13:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Sbjf (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering the same. But I am now questioning the difference, which I think is probably to do with thickness, so often unsurveyable. I think given the wide range of surfaces already covered by paving_stones it is okay to use it for tiles. TrekClimbing (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

At least it could have paving_stones:material=* added.
—— Kovposch (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There is now a surface=tiles tag documented. The difference to paving_stones may be that the gaps between the tiles are so small you may not even notice them, which could be useful information for blind users. Aceman444 (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ve been using surface=tiles for quite some time. I think tiles can easily be distinguished from paving stones not just by the narrower joints between them (but by their typical, more or less smooth ceramic surface and usually rectangular shape – see Tile). See also my comments in the first section, “Reserving the term 'paving stones' for flat slabs?”. I would also say that tiles are quite different from paving stones (since, after all, it is ceramic and not stone), and for that reason alone, I find the value paving_stones rather unsuitable for them. --Goodidea (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Tag:surface=paving_stones:30

@CarrotManMatt: you might not like it, but Tag:surface=paving_stones:30 is commonly used in the Netherlands. Multichill (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just because that tag is in heavy use, does not mean it should be promoted by the wiki. Especially when it does not match the existing tagging guidelines. IMO an effort should be made to convert any occurrences of this invalid tag to the accepted tagging scheme. However overall I don't have enough time to engage in cleaning this up/convincing other people so I'll leave what you have put on the wiki page alone from now on. CarrotManMatt (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I've moved this tag out of the "Subtags" section because it is not a subtag of surface=paving_stones, it's an alternative tag. I've also added a corresponding section to surface=paving_stones:30. --Tordanik 08:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Y-Shape

I would like to add "y-shape" as value for paving_stones:shape. Any complains? See: https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/die-form-von-pflastersteinen/107150

Branded paving patterns

Hi, is there a tag for marking paving stone patterns that are not generic like on the page, but specially crafted to create a specific pattern common to a city or a company. The pattern is always the same when paving stones are placed in the same city. The pattern does not need to be the shape of the gaps (not paving_stones:shape nor paving_stones:pattern), but it may be special markings on the top surface of the paving stones. See e.g. [1] for an example of what I mean. The city created a special design of stones that will be placed on different areas in the city. The article even says that London, Berlin and Barcelona already have their own designed paving stones. What would be a good tag for that ? E.g. paving_stones:brand=bratislava? Or something hierarchical like paving_stones:design=brand + brand=Bratislava (this could tap into the established branding system with brand:wikidata)? Aceman444 (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

paving_stones:*=* is better. The format is established. brand=* may seem to be for the highway=road somehow.

paving_stones:brand=* might be unclear whether it's the design, or manufacturers. That being said, it may be argued manufacturers are making the same branded blocks for the authority. I would start with this first.

In general, there's no tagging for "archetypes" yet. Eg paving_stones:model=* may be assigned by manufacturers, or for small variations between the same archetype. Kovposch (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)