Proposal talk:Highway=estate

Roads tagged with highway=unclassified should typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network.

ok

On the other hand, all roads without official classification that are not residential, service or track are tagged in this way. Think about roads in industrial estates, or roads outside built-up areas that have no interconnecting character.

Yes, we have a "gap" between unclassified and residential, because residential, that are defined as ...

Roads accessing or around residential areas but which are not a classified or unclassified highway.

... so highway=residential is literally only true in combination with residential areas, defined as a land use in which housing predominates, as opposed to industrial and commercial areas

Regarding residential areas, it seems not to be common to tag a road with connecting character as highway=unclassified, because "unclassified" is associated with rural roads or roads in industrial estates. Also, a lot of roads that should be tagged as highway=unclassified are tagged as highway=tertiary, maybe because the "connecting character" is not (Mapnik) or only little (T@H) visible onto the standard maps. At least this seems to be common practice in Germany.

unclassified ist defined as typically form the lowest form of the interconnecting grid network as you wrote. For my opinion it also includes connecting them from rural areas to the next higher road also if the unclassified gos through residential areas. So it's not a problem of the definition, only a problem for mappers because of name?

Yes and no, if a mapper associates "unclassified" with rural roads and industrial areas, so he will not use it within residential areas. This is less a problem of the name, but more a problem of misuse of highway=unclassified because of alternatives.--Plasmon 08:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So the main advantages of the new tag is a clear separation of roads with connecting character (highway=motorway/primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified) from roads with accessing character to a certain area (highway=residential/estate). This is also good for routing software (more consistent input data) and renderers (weighting up highway=unclassified).

We just have two types of roads (unclassified an residential) and further on we also want to have to types of roads, as you wrote:

To look ahead, highway=residential might be replaced with highway=estate in general.

So then we should decide, if it is really necessary to rename residential to estate (if it ist the right word, I don't know...) over the whole world?

Or should we define residential and unclassified more clearly? ... to fill the gap in undustrial areas and rural areas without connecting function.

I think this might be the way which is more easy?

Of course you can think about it. But as a result, highway=residential has to be used in the cases I want to cover with highway=estate. And this did not work in past. On the other hand, I do not think that this proposal stand a chance, if I want to deprecate one of the most used tags (see this in German OSM forum). This can be done in future, if there is no need to separate them from each other.--Plasmon 08:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

So the surrounding property is already defined by the landuse=* tag, so there is no need to define a special road type for this.

indeed, so highway=residential is "free" to form an estate road? ;-)

I don't see that we need this new type of road...

--Mueck 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is free if you don't mind the name "residential". This is a very bad chosen name, because of the strong association with residential buildings. The name does not fit into the schema roads with and without connecting character.--Plasmon 08:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

why not use highway=service for this?

Vovkav 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC): why not use highway=service for this?

• I second this. --Floridaeditor (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)