Talk:Tag:highway=rest area

Potlatch

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)

I would expect amenity=parking to be mapped either on the same object (if rest area is just a parking lot) or an an area inside Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2021 (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 https://caravanontour.com/free-campsites-and-low-cost-camping/south-australia/rest-area-and-places-to-pull-over-when-tired/3032-hesso-rest-area.html Others have better facilities .. but still no beer and no food! see http://highwaytraveller.com.au/towns/nsw/grafton/free-rest-areas 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 this wrongly tagged example 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 your example 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)

New custom tag

I've been adding rest areas in Texas,USA and would like to create some custom maps. One thing that I've seen on the state website are maps that shows and designates the different categories of TX rest areas; such as a "normal" rest area, "enhanced" rest areas, picnic areas (rest areas with no toilets), and "Travel Information Centers". I'd like to denote each one differently on my map. If I understand this page [1] it would not be inappropriate to add a custom category tag that defines some property of the area.

I'm thinking of something like this: RestAreaCategory=[picnic|standard|enhanced|travel_center]

My questions -

• Am I thinking on the correct path here or am I totally wrong?
• Any suggestions to my key=values?
• Would anyone else use this? Should I create a tag page defining the values and usage or is this useless to anyone else?

Your thoughts and feedback are appreciated --- BubbleGuppies (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You need to read Any_tags_you_like#What_not_to_map for Good practice in Verifiability. Unless there's an official designation of this, you should think of something else to qualify them, or use them in your own map data only. What does "enhanced" mean? Others can be added by toilets=no, and tourism=information + information=visitor_centre/information=office, etc. ---- Kovposch (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I guess what I failed to explain is that these are official designations from the state dept of transportation. On their website and maps they categorize the different rest areas in terms of levels of service and designate them as "picnic areas, rest areas, enhanced rest areas, and travel centers" - so this would not be my personal assessment or rating. To quickly summarize the values:

• Picnic areas are rest areas with minimal services, concrete picnic tables, no toilets, no running water.
• Rest Areas are what you typically see on US highways as started in 1970-1980's. Toilets, running water, maybe a vending machine.
• Texas (and I've noticed other states like Oklahoma) about 10-15years ago started building what are known as Enhanced Rest Areas. These have historical information for that area, maybe interactive displays, staff during working hours, wifi, park-like features like playground, tornado shelters, etc.
• Travel Centers are rest areas on state borders and are like Enhanced Rest Areas but are bigger, offer tourist information, highway toll tags, even "Professional Travel Counselor".

I think other states have these categories, maybe not all. And - I agree the values would certainly need to be defined on a tag=value page. After looking through taginfo I'm thinking this may be better.

rest_area:type==[picnic|standard|enhanced|travel_center]

As for an example of current status of tags, check out [2]. I'd appreciate any feedback/comments on this.

--- BubbleGuppies (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I would definitely add also generic tags such as toilets=no/toilets=yes (as people outside Texas will have no idea how this classes imply presence/lack of toilet and anyway official class may mismatch actual facilities). Also, is it Texas/USA specific designations? Maybe rest_area_category:texas=* would be better key? And definitely use _ and lowercas over UPPERCASE and spaces. --- Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

To get more feedback you can try USA Slack, tagging mailing list, Discord and other contact channels. OSM Wiki discussion pages are very low traffic Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

---@BubbleGuppies: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

It's ok to directly use rest_area=* as an initial choice, with no other conflicts at the moment. If one really wants it to be state-specific values, rest_area:US-TX=* might be used to highlight this.

However, I found that designation=* in Proposed features/Designation actually allows "This is not specific to footpaths, cyclepaths, bridleways etc. It is for the official designation of any object." and "The designation= tag avoids the tag bloat that would result from inventing dedicated tags for each of these objects". Notwithstanding, Key:designation describes a "legal classification" without specifying how strong the "legal" requirement is. So I wonder whether this can be used.

For the format, I have always wondered whether these should be freeform text or pre-set values. Again using this example, Proposed features/Designation started by "This is a freeform tag. Any value may be used", but then followed the lowercase underscore-spaced tag standard. In comparison, the newer protection_title=* from Tag:boundary=protected_area and Key:heritage uses uppercase whitespace.

---- Kovposch (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you already know drinking_water=*, internet_access=*, and picnic_table=* can be used on the highway=rest_area:

• "maybe a vending machine" vending_machine=yes
• "staff during working hours" supervised=*

The selling of "highway toll tags" is more difficult to be described.

For 818167091 818167091, there's a mistake in the opening_hours=*. They should be separated, in the amenity=toilets as opening_hours=24/7 , and in the tourism=information + information=office as opening_hours=Mo-Su 08:00-17:00.

--- Kovposch (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I've been chewing on this the past couple days and based on the feedback I've talked myself out of going down this path. I feel like a designation would be too specific to this one state and not universal. Also, I'm not sure it adds as much value as I previously thought. As mentioned, one could always query for specific amenities or lack of amenities. I'll work on utilizing the existing tags as exampled above.

I'll fix the opening hours on 818167091 818167091 as indicated.

Thanks @Mateusz Konieczny: and @Kovposch: for the interesting discussion!!!!

---- BubbleGuppies (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Rest areas for cyclists and hikers

The text focuses on motor vehicles and motorways. There are also rest areas with seats, tables, toilets and bins, and often a machine or another way to get yourself a coffee or a snack, for cyclists and hikers, along smaller ways. Perfectly comparable to rest areas for motorists. The current text can be read to include cyclists, but I think this could be more expicit, and hikers could be mentioned as well. Hikers do not drive, but the do follow long roads and happily use rest areas, if they can be found along the trail. This site: https://www.rustpunt.nu/home is from a Dutch initiative for such places.--Peter Elderson (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)