Template talk:Map Features:highway

Having examples on a sub page is not helpful in this case. Scrolling down a page looking for a symbol is quite different from going to each page trying to identify what you have seen. The page is cluttered I agree, but it is currently wrong. There are only 3 mapnik images in this set currently, so I have replaced 2 and can't find an example of the third (highway:path) anyway, and don't care enough to keep looking. Alternatively, link to places where the tag exists, and it is up to date without having to go on the wiki page being updated. Alternativly again, have an osmarender image in the box which links to that place on the map, so the other variation can be seen. This doesn't offer more than going to the subpage and seeing the variations though.

Please don't be rude in your summaries, and please learn that the amount of times something happens is not a valid reason why it should or shouldn't happen. It merely shows that it's something enough people are bothered about, so just reverting it, leaves us back at at the start, where it wasn't satisfactory, which is evident from repetition. Ben 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

country specific definitions

Country specific definitions of highway classes shouldn't be part of a generic feature list. They should be moved to the tag-definitions. --ck3d 17:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

traffic_calming values

Traffic calming key values need changing as all of them use same variable name. This makes it impossible to directly link to national translations of the various tags. --Skippern 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why can't they be translated as is? -- JohnSmith 21:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Because: all of the value variables are the same name, when tranlating Tag=traffic_calming=hump to Pt-br:Tag:traffic_calming=hump, I also translates Tag:traffic_calming=pump, Tag:traffic_calming=chicane, Tag:traffic_calming=table etc to Pt-br:Tag:traffic_calming=hump --Skippern 22:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

traffic_calming template

I think we should extract traffic calming definitions from highway template and put them in their own template. This way it could be displayed in page Key:traffic_calming, and it will avoid redundant definitions. --Oligo 17:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

track:desc change docu and suggestion

Changes to the description of tracks to get an easier overview as browsing the history of just this one section is hard:

Version before next cited edit:

Roads for agricultural use, gravel roads in the forest etc.; usually unpaved/unsealed but may occasionally apply to paved tracks as well, see tracktype=* for more guidance.

• 752266 ("usually" → "often", "tracktype for tagging to describe the surface")

And following this – in the last 12 months (I may have missed some edits before):

• 980303 (+"In countries where most roads are unpaved, […]")
• 1052034 (+"can be used only by off-road vehicles")
• 1124788 ("This tag is not describing quality […]")

The last edit effectively reverted the two earlier changes (apparently without knowing this):

"Roads for agricultural or forestry uses etc. Often rough with unpaved/unsealed surfaces. Use tracktype=* for tagging to describe the surface."

into

"Roads for agricultural or forestry uses etc. This tag is not describing quality of road, use surface=* or tracktype=* for tagging to describe the surface."

--Aseerel4c26 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So, let's try to puzzle a description instead of uncoordinated editing which is hard to track: I agree with edit 1124788 that the text was too long. However, it went that long for a purpose, I guess because people often used this tag wrong and edit 980303 tried to make it clearer for them. The "only off-road" is clearly not describing current tagging practise and tag description on its wiki page. Mentioning that tracks are "often" unpaved is just a coincidental fact and may be a good hint for people in asphalt countries as, but could also be a bit misleading. What about the following (I have replaced the "etc" with "mostly" (taken from Tag:highway=track, and used "and" instead of "or" between surface and tracktype as they are not excluding each other)?

• Try as1: Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses. Although tracks are often rough with unpaved surfaces, this tag is not describing the quality of a road, hence use surface=* and tracktype=* in addition! Consequently, if you want to tag a general use road instead, do not use track but one of the general values.

Comments, suggestions please! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion a combination of all variants would be fine:

• Try im1: Roads for agricultural use, e.g. gravel roads in the forest, tracks through fields, etc.; often, but not necessary unpaved/unsealed.
  Note: This tag is not describing the quality of the road, but its use; especially in countries where most roads are unpaved, other values like trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/residential/unclassified should be considered. For details on specifying the quality of the road, see tracktype=* or surface=*.

I think this should cover all facts. --Imagic (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Imagic! Sadly nobody else seems to have the time and/or willingness to participate.

I think your suggestion got quite long again. Those examples ("e.g. gravel roads in the forest, tracks through fields") are not needed, because they focus again on the surface and we have a photo beneath which serves as example. I would like to avoid all those "e.g.", "etc" and ";" as this makes the sentence not easier to read. I think such a short definition should be in a language as simple as possible.

• Try as2: Roads for mostly agricultural or forestry uses. To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype=*. Note: Although tracks are often rough with unpaved surfaces, this tag is not describing the quality of a road but its use. Consequently, if you want to tag a general use road, use one of the general highway values instead of track.

What about this? A very definition at first. And then later on more details about "use"(!). I shortened the quality sentence as more details (surface, smoothness) are mentioned on the primary quality tag's page (tracktype). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I like it - short and to the point. In my suggestion I tried to change as few text as possible in order to keep complaints as low as possible ;-) But your second suggestion is my favourite. --Imagic (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have replaced the description by "Try as2". --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. Lets see how long the new text lasts ;-) --Imagic (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I propose adding at the end "To describe quality of road use keys like tracktype=* and surface=*." to make even more clear how one should mark that road is unpaved Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Addition of emergency_bay and priority_road?

Two tags were just added to this list of approved and de-facto highway=* values: highway=emergency_bay and priority_road=yes. Both have mainly been used in Germany and nearby areas of central Europe. I question whether these tags are established enough to merit inclusion on this page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I did it. Thanks for checking. Apologies if I was too fast. Do you see any reasons (low count / alternative "competing" tagging schemes / tagging issues / too local usage) to not change the status value to "defacto"? Both seems to have quite organic growth over last 10 years:

https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/highway/emergency_bay

https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/priority_road/

--MalgiK (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

" ... list of approved and de-facto highway=* values ..." I just checked some keys form the list. Some of them doesn't seems to be de-facto (and/or approved?), e.g. abutters=*, bicycle_road=*, driving_side=*, junction=*, lit=*, overtaking=* , parking:condition=*. Maybe I'm wrong or some status values of these keys aren't up-to-date (or could be improved)... --MalgiK (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Most of those could be marked as "de facto" or are at least very old (e.g. "abutters", old but no longer recommended). I agree that driving_side should not be on here: it's only been used 391 times. And the key bicycle_road=* should be discussed because it appears to be nearly identical to cyclestreet=*: "So far, this page is about the situation in Germany, in Belgium/The Netherlands, cyclestreet=* is used instead". --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Update doc page?

Template:Map_Features:highway#Usage "Template for copy/paste. Translate text after equal sign. " - it seems that it should be updated, not sure how Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)