Talk:Key:living street

Not a troll tag

I do not consider this tag as a troll tag. It does exist roads signed with living street board but are in shape, in traffic or in use not proper living streets. A living street is a quiet street, with low traffic, and crossing for pedestrian is easy. In order to discriminate the official from the real life, this key is usefull. --Florimondable (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"signed with living street board but are in shape, in traffic or in use not proper living streets." - in this case the official signage is wrong, no? We should not tag the signage if the sign does not match reality. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Signage still has legal implications.

Anyhow if we look how this tag is used, it doesn't fit my interpretation : in Russia it is used for service road/residential roads with no traffic sign for it.--Florimondable (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Signage is effective to zones in some countries. The legal restrictions apply until there is another sign stating the end of the living street area. Inside those zones, there may be service ways, or even old separate cycle ways. So rules of the living street apply here as well, but re-tagging every cycle way, service way or even a separate sidewalk inside the living street area as highway=living_street doesn't really fit. It should remain highway=service/cycleway/… with living_street=yes added.

If there is a tag which has issues, it is highway=living_street. It expresses a legal property, while all other highway=*-tags (except pedestrian and //-only-tags) express physical properties. The problem is similar to crossing=island, which is now deprecated deprecated because of the same issue. --Bstein (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

No, highway=* for roads describes importance or function of a road, not physical properties. Aceman444 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

At least in the Post-Soviet practice such signs are predominantly used for service roads or driveways within appartment complexes and very rarely for named or significantly wide roads. Essentially rules of the living street sign apply even if one is missing - such service roads are in most cases very distinct from regular streets and there is rarely a place for confusion. Here's an example of what would typically be signed as a living street.--VileGecko (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Replacing with service=living_street?

It seems that the only reasonable combination of this tag is with highway=service as all cases where the combo of highway=residential + living_street=yes exists should essentially be replaced with highway=living_street.

Also seems quite unlikely that a residential service road marked with the living street sign would require other conflicting tags like service=driveway, service=alley or service=parking_aisle. Similarly, I can't imagine why the tag living_street=yes would need to be applied to highway=tertiary and above or to any kind of footway, path or track.

My suggestion (not yet ready to write a proper proposal though) would be to keep just the two instances of living street tagging of roads marked with the living street signs:

• for named streets and major street-like service roads (2 lanes, parking slots/lanes, sidewalks on both sides etc.): highway=living_street;
• for common service roads within residential areas: highway=service + service=living_street.

As for the rendering I imagine it would be adequate to use the same grey colour as for the tag highway=living_street but of the same width as regular highway=service uses. --VileGecko (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Any highway classification can be living_street=yes since its a legal area classification, with a corresponding sign. In the Netherlands we do have highway=secondary, footway and parking_asile living streets. I will try to do a survey this week and upload some pictures illustrating this. --Tjuro (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@VileGecko: "(2 lanes, parking slots/lanes, sidewalks on both sides etc.): highway=living_street;" This is an misnomer since an street that has sidewalks is per definition not shared space. --Tjuro (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In Poland there are many many highway=living_street with sidewalks. Even some highway=pedestrian Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"the only reasonable combination of this tag is with highway=service" yes, but: (1) some of this service roads are also driveways (2) some roads are unreasonably classified as living streets, including some highway=primary (not sure whether they fixed this mistake and how it is tagged right now in OSM) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No, there are pedestrian priority streets in non-residential-only areas. They would be highway=unclassified + living_street=yes . Same for non-local-functionality-only streets.
service=alley is another problem in itself.
--- Kovposch (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are some special cases where service=living_street wouldn't work:

* Parking aisle inside area with living street regulations: highway=service + service=parking_aisle + living_street=yes

* Cycleway inside area with living street regulations: highway=cycleway + living_street=yes

(these exist in the Netherlands, although many may not be tagged as such yet)

--JeroenvanderGun (talk) 18:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)