Feedback wanted: Micromapping a backyard and features around a tram stop area


I recently had some fun in micromapping, and this the same time was for me an OSM learning session.

Now I want some feedback.

If you want to provide feedback, please look generally at the stuff (also in an OSM editor or so which shows everything), and I am happy about any general feedback (specific questions I have phrased below) like

  • This is plainly wrong (reason/ how to make it better)
  • Could be done that way, but also another way (why/ how)
  • Maybe … need more information
  • this is a good idea!
  • If you do this, you also need to do that (reason)

Here are the sites in question:

  • One site of my micromapping is around this building (Uhlandstraße 5 and Paul-Küstner-Straße 9 and 11 in Leipzig, Germany): The division of the building in parts, placing of address tags, & (most micromapping carried out there) the backyard.
    (Note that I could not subdivide the 9 and 5, since I don’t know where the subdivision line between the buildings run. I only could subdivide the 9, and I made building parts for the parts which have some min_height.).
    The “basement” is more like a souterrain, so I used a 0.5-levelling here, and I want to ask if this is the way to go here.
  • The other site is around the tram stop “Infineon Süd (Abwzweig nach Hellerau)” in Dresden, Germany: The areas were people walk, features around, and a few of signalling. I concentrated along the platforms and railway tracks along the turning circle. I modelled many areas for features. (And noticed that area:highway=path or highway=path, area=yes does not get rendered on osm‍.‍org, but hey, we don’t map for the renderer. But that case made me think twice here and there …)
    Especially there I introduced a lot of “manholes”, although I suspect that below the openings is nothing deep someone can climb into but just some technical facilities for the tram. Is this OK?, or should it be mapped different?

I might not continue there, so I take the feedback as learning, but probably will not invest more energy there (except of fixing blatand mistakes).


1 Like

Looks really nice!

I spotted one thing that I fixed:

highway=service service=parking_aisle should be on line, not on area. area:highway should be on area and highway should be on line (with rare exceptions).

Yes, it results in area:highway not being shown on some map displays.

The same goes for Way: 1085667968 | OpenStreetMap and similar areas.

1 Like


I have a question to be clarified:

highway=service service=parking_aisle should be on line, not on
area. area:highway should be on area and highway should be on
line (with rare exceptions).

As I understand the wiki:

area:highway=* is just for cosmetic reasons, where you need an
additional highway=* as a line and the highway is interpreted as
line, with directional driving/ walking.

area=yes and highway=* should be, when the area where people drive/
walk can be driven/ walked in any way, not just directional, and in
theory the idea is that there is area routing possible there.

So, what is the problem with having an area for driving, which is to
access parking spaces, mapped as




1 Like

OK, now a feedback for you:

Thanks for fixing!

However, the highway you now created does neither connect with the parking spaces nor with the footway. So useless for routing, and the now area:highway=service is only cosmetical, so also useless for routing. Also you did forget the access tag on the line highway you created (maybe it’s not needed because of the barrier=lift_gate?) as well as the surface and lightning tags, that were present on the former area highway.


1 Like

… according to that, I now changed this service road to a line feature.

1 Like