Lee Carré (2022-02-03 00:37:16+00:00): Much to address, here.

“The sources I've used are Mapillary, Bing and some local knowledge.”

👍

Seems that there's been some new imagery captured since I last browsed Mapillary.

“I still have some doubts about some of the tagging.”

Best to not guess. Else a tag can be misleading (compared to omitting it).

“The ones in private residential areas are the ones I am less familiar with …”

Yeah, those are tricky, and risky (see, for e.g., http://osm.org/note/2286368 ).

“… probably also the ones that got you to raise this question, I assume.”

Not in particular, just monitoring my local area. Jersey attracts folks who just wanna pad out their How Do You Contribute? country list, or far too much http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer (or oddities like the combination of highway=pedestrian & motor_vehicle=designated on the same way) by inexperienced locals.

I'm all for quality changes.

“highway=residential”

The wiki gives a fairly clear distinction between residential versus other (service, unclassified). However, from your description, and the geometry, they do seem to qualify.

For example, a through-road which is used by non-residents, doesn't qualify. A road merely having housing doesn't make it residential (else most of town would be).

“access=private”

My reading of the wiki is that this is for when only specific individuals are permitted (e.g. an industrial area). In this case, since visitors are allowed, access=destination. Particularly since that key's value affects routing (access=private is typically treated as access=no). Housing estates marked as private aren't to be taken literally in terms of tagging; they just don't want tourists or through-traffic, which is what access=destination means.

Besides, just because signage says private, doesn't mean that this is necessarily the case, legally (think about speed limits on private land; speeding isn't then an enforceable crime, whoever put up the signage is hoping for habitual compliance). Sometimes it's used as a deterrent.

For example, if there's a public footpath at the other end, then the signage is dubious (how would a pedestrian reach the footpath?). I've seen real examples of that. Though, also of estates which very much seemed private, and had their own private footpaths connecting us surrounding roads.

However, when the only exit is also the entrance, and signage says private, then it seems more plausible.

Again; if I'm doubt, then omit (but add a fixme:highway and/or fixme:access perhaps with a value of #SurveyMe, and perhaps a note:access with a description of the ambiguity, to inform other mappers of the uncertainty; so that when someone does a survey, or happens to live there, they know that the existing values are guesswork, and to replace them).
Sounds like a survey would be a good idea, for this area, especially since ways were missing (and imagery is lacking; I often find footpaths which are missing from the map).

“ownership=private”

The entity which legally owns the land isn't determined. Thus the type of said entity isn't known. It could be a housing trust, for example, or parish holdings. Each of which warrant a different value.

In my experience, ownership is even more difficult to determine (from sources without copyright entanglements) than the operator.

“Having them tagged as service with no additional tags, doesn't seem correct to me as service roads to me means something that accesses a single house, a business, parking lots, parks, service installations (like towers).”

Usually, but it also seems to be something of a default (or used as such; perhaps incorrectly).

Even so, let's say that it was beyond question that the ways weren't service. Well, if it were also unclear what they *should* be, then guessing would be bad.
However, residential does seem apt, in this case. Simples. Though, a survey would still be good (I'll add it to my ever-growing list).

“why you think these should be service roads?”

I never said that. I think they should be tagged correctly. In this case, that seems to be highway=residential.
My caution was that I've seen non-residential (or otherwise non-qualifying) roads tagged as such.
I'm pleased to discover that you've been diligent.

Another problem in Jersey (and the other Channel Islands) is folks assuming that what applies to the UK also applies here. It often doesn't.

I do think that details (lanes, surface, smoothness, sidewalk, and so on) should be left to survey, unless unambiguously clear in imagery.
Lit almost certainly has to be by-survey.

Sometimes things like where exactly the threshold is, between two areas; where does one way become another, or where should a way be split for different tagging to apply …

Separately; yet another problem in Jersey is that we don't have enough GNSS traces to align imagery. Something else I'm working on. Thus, a lot of features are misaligned when out navigating with an app. Sometimes by enough to make it unclear which real object relates to which map element. Often, when adding a small feature, I have to choose between aligning to existing data, or to GNSS (the two are offset by at least several metres).
So, until lots more traces are available, it is wise to tag ways & building-outlines with source:geometry and (if different) source:position. This will, in future, help careful mappers realign only that which was misaligned, once enough GNSS tracks are uploaded.

Yup, it's a bit of a mess. Hence my aversion to guesswork. Often I find myself cleaning up the guesswork of others, including during precious survey time. Alas.

Since your contributions appear well-crafted; thanks for helping out.