While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to
render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people
suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian
area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too.
John Smith wrote:
While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks
to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what
people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the
Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not
always clear what they
are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the
correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several
reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions.
I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or
hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jack Stringer jack.ix...@googlemail.com wrote:
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is
the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that
use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions.
I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is
either rough terrain or
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords,
mud or poor traction conditions ...
The sign says 4WD ONLY
Hi,
Roy Wallace wrote:
The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they
are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is
already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary,
motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no,
motorcar:4wd=yes or something)?
This is going in the
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to
a fine if you
proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance
won't pay if
you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice
to drivers?
Primarily
Morten Kjeldgaard schrieb:
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is
already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary,
motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no,
motorcar:4wd=yes or
On 05/08/2009, at 5:54 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed
the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where
the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use.
While true, it would also be useful to know whether
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote:
High ground clearance required?
More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what
they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct
terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground
clearance,
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
region, why not
tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
renderer should
implement it, as it could just be used in this area,
whereas surface=*
can
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
High ground clearance required?
...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology
and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep
fords,
mud or poor traction conditions ...
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still
might not make a 4wd
only track.
Having grown up in such areas I'm well schooled in traveling along tracks that
aren't 4wd only and ways to unstick yourself, usually jacking up the car
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote:
What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you
proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if
you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers?
Ah, the legal status is very interesting.
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote:
WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by
being what's on
the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement,
that would be
different, but this is unambiguous.
Australia isn't the only country that
John Smith schrieb:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
region, why not
tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
renderer should
implement it, as it could just be used in this area,
Hi,
Peter Körner wrote:
4WD has a special meaning in your area
I don't know what 4WD means in other places but if I saw a map with
certain roads marked 4 WD only I would know exactly what that means,
and I doubt that anyone wouldn't!
Bye
Frederik
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote:
surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world.
it doesn't tell me whether i drive my FWD car along there or if i should stay
away
and it doesn't matter how you define surface, it isn't going to explain what
4wd only means.
it's a
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that
region, why not
tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the
The BETTER data, the better. There, I fixed that for you :-)
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software
can't be expected to deal with
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the
software
can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different
situations. It's
better to keep the data general. So using the surface=*
tag is a
better approach
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered,
Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata.
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
So using the surface=* tag is a
better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary
traffic.
Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just
about any surface except mud, as long
David Lynch schrieb:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
So using the surface=* tag is a
better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary
traffic.
Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just
about any
Jonathan Bennett schrieb:
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered,
Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata.
And also remember that the Main-OSM-Mapnik renderer isn't the only one
out there. If someone wants to render a map with this
John Smith schrieb:
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote:
Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the
software
can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different
situations. It's
better to keep the data general. So using the surface=*
tag is
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote:
Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into
a tag/value pair but with the clarification that
4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not*
necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road
at
29 matches
Mail list logo
