Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Am 20/mar/2014 um 06:53 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com: Wondering if any country would be doing worse than Brazil in terms of road infrastructure, I found this: http://global.umich.edu/2014/02/worlds-most-dangerous-roads-are-in-africa-middle-east-latin-america/ OT here, but I'd expect the reasons for these not in the road quality but in the driving culture and car quality and the quality and structure of emergency services. whether you make an accident depends on you and the others driving according to the current conditions (road state, weather, visibility etc), and after you made the accident it will depend on the safety of your car and the emergency services whether you die or not (mostly). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Am 19/mar/2014 um 23:35 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Please note that the track type scale goes from 1 to 5, there is no such thing as a grade6 Indeed. What I said was I believe there should be 6,7 and 8. There is already a small number of =grade6 in the database as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst), adding grade 6 to 8 would mean redefining the whole system. Have a look at taginfo, everything beside 1-5 is used in neglect able numbers. Redefinitions never work well for tags (how would you know if a value was according to the old or new definition). if you are missing certain characteristics in the current tags you better propose additional tags (new) then to redefine what we have. For Australia I recall the proposition of 4wd tags some years ago: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=4wd (don't know how well they are thought out and if they work) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tags on areas containing highway=*
Am 20/mar/2014 um 06:39 schrieb bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com: Is it reasonable to expect that well tagged road contains all access tags necessary to check whatever it is accessible? In other words - is it OK to tag area like proving ground with access=no, without tagging roads on this area with proper access tags? IMHO it should be sufficient, but practically no router works like this as of now, so adding access tags to the roads is safer cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tags on areas containing highway=*
Practically I don't think it will work, as it requires much more data to be processed in the preprocessing - I therefore agree with Martin. But I think an intermediate solution should and could work: If all entrances to the area are not accessible (e.g. gates, lift-gates and such), adding access=no/private to them should work. Personally I would consider routers to be buggy when they ignore barriers tagged on nodes of the way, while I would accept them not to do geometrical calculations between areas and ways. Keep in mind though, that e.g. for forests often access is only allowed on the highways that cross it. Access=no at the forest area would - following your argumentation - imply access=no on any highway crossing it, which will fail in most situations, because nobody explicitly states access=yes to the highway in these cases. regards Peter Am 20.03.2014 06:39, schrieb bulwersator: Is it reasonable to expect that well tagged road contains all access tags necessary to check whatever it is accessible? In other words - is it OK to tag area like proving ground with access=no, without tagging roads on this area with proper access tags? Should cases like this be reported by validators? Or maybe routing engines should be expected to process also areas that share no nodes with processed ways? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Nodes.2C_ways_and_areas basically says do not remove correct access tags, is not answering my question (it is about removing tags, not adding new ones. Also, it is failing to consider that it is possible to ensure adding missing tags by using quality assurance tools). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Computing_access_restrictions is not mentioning areas, maybe because roads should have full set of relevant tags, maybe because it is incomplete. Note: this is not purely theoretical, I encountered it during planning development of JOSM plugin. In my opinion all relevant access tags should be on way and its nodes, otherwise it is unclear whatever road inherits access data from area. Moreover it would make processing data overly complex, but this one may be easily countered that requiring specific access tags would make editing tedious. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:02 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst), No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many roads far, far worse that the grade5 description. And thats why we need grade6,7,8, to cover those roads beyond the existing scale. Not to reduce the gaps between each grade, but to extend beyond the current range. We both agree it would be a bad thing to redefine existing widely used tags. WRT your answer to Fernando, again, Martin, I suggest, with the greatest of respect, that you may not have experienced just how bad some roads can be. A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland. No part of it even approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other roads, world wide, often quite important ones, that are beyond grade5. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tags on areas containing highway=*
On 3/20/14 6:33 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote: Personally I would consider routers to be buggy when they ignore barriers tagged on nodes of the way, while I would accept them not to do geometrical calculations between areas and ways. absolutely they are buggy. here is one example from my own personal mapping experience; a public road with a gate intended for access by emergency services only: http://osm.org/go/Zdp4x2JHR- i've seen a couple of features of this sort in the course of mapping. richard -- rwe...@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking - GIS IT Consulting OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux Java - Web Applications - Search signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:40:15PM +1100, David Bannon wrote: A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland. No part of it even approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other roads, world wide, often quite important ones, that are beyond grade5. That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk: http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
2014-03-20 12:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk: http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm looking at those pictures it seems as if that's not even a track but a road. If it were a track or if you were to apply tracktype anyway to this, I do not see a reason why this cannot be e.g. grade4. It is obvious that bad weather (rain, but also snow and ice) can make a road unpassable. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
2014-03-20 11:40 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst), No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many roads far, far worse that the grade5 description. And thats why we need grade6,7,8, to cover those roads beyond the existing scale. if you look at the tracktype wiki key-page (as well as on the original proposal) it was never spoken of or defined any tracktype beyond grade5, instead it is always about grade1 to grade5. Current taginfo usage supports this view, where 99,9% of all values are within this range. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=tracktype#values Now let's look at the definitions, tracktype is often seen as how much constructed a track is, and grade5 is a not constructed track, in the image covered by vegetation (grass). Now what can be less constructed than not costructed at all? Obviously these exemplaric pictures are useful for reference only in a small geographical window (namely central / northern Europe), while already in southern Europe it will be difficult to find situations like these (less water and therefore less and different vegetation). Photos in general have the advantage that they can communicate quite well to someone in the same setting what is thought of by a tag, but they also bear the risk that you think (in a different setting) I don't have something like this here, that's why I'd personally prefer to not use photos in tag definitions or to add more of them to show different examples for the same thing in different settings (so that it becomes clearer that these are only illustrations and the feature might actually look quite different). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Opinion on meaning of tracktype, smoothness and surface for routing
On 2014-03-16 22:37, Fernando Trebien wrote : Hello, Following from this conclusion (https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-March/016904.html), I'm now trying to find a way to use tracktype, smoothness and surface to improve routing quality. For an average 4 passenger car (not an SUV, not a truck, not a motorcycle), I believe that: 1. Maximum "safe speed" is limited by how regular the surface is and also by how dense the surface material is. The exact material (in the "surface" tag) is not so important for routing as are these other two qualities (smoothness and material density). 2. Smoothness and surface density could be somewhat guessed from "surface" tag in most cases, and smoothness and tracktype could refine this guess. ... Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very subjective but that the road width is very objective. Moreover, the width can be very easily measured with JOSM on Bing. Of course, the closely related parameter is speed. Two other optimizing data for routing appear to be readily available: declivity as contour lines and straightness which is computable from the map of the road. I think that the only left parameter (beside varying weather, of course) is what you deal with: surface. Not only "will the car be hopping?" but also "is it slippery?", the latter only as a local condition. If we could find an indisputable value for road surface, we could build a very valuable routing database, probably innovative but unfortunately easy to steal. But could we find an objective measure of the surface? That is, such that everyone comes the the same value, not subjective. While reading your texts, I've had a crazy idea: measuring vibration in the car. There are Android vibration measuring programs like Vibration Monitoring. Alas, car vibration is very much dependent on car suspension. But would some of us experiment this or another idea and come up with a solution? Wouldn't it be great to organize a well thought out worldwide road quality tagging party? Sadly, traffic restriction tagging is in a miserable state. People even laugh at me, and that is at themselves, when I talk of GPS. More of this later, I hope. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Opinion on meaning of tracktype, smoothness and surface for routing
2014-03-20 15:02 GMT+01:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very subjective but that the road width is very objective. yes, the highway classification is slightly subjective but as osm shows, the cloud can usually find a commonly accepted values, so this doesn't seem to be a real problem (also because it doesn't really matter if a road is classified as secondary rather than primary, and more than one class up or down is usually not the range up to discussion). Of course everybody is free to add a road width as well, there is the tag width for this, and also the tag lanes. Unfortunately until now, only 5% of all highway-elements (admittedly not only roads) have the tag lanes and 1% has the tag width. Moreover, the width can be very easily measured with JOSM on Bing. you should be careful with the spherical mercator projection though, you might end up with different widths for the same width due to different latitudes, I am not sure how precise those measurements in JOSM actually are (some time ago they weren't but maybe this is fixed now). Of course, the closely related parameter is speed. related to width? I do not think there is a close relation, at least not a reliable one. While reading your texts, I've had a crazy idea: measuring vibration in the car. There are Android vibration measuring programs like Vibration Monitoring. Alas, car vibration is very much dependent on car suspension. But would some of us experiment this or another idea and come up with a solution? this sounds interesting indeed, while I agree that it mostly depends on the car suspension. With (unsuspended) bicycles this would be more reliable I guess, but still the ability of the driver / rider to avoid holes in the surface might make a huge difference (e.g. in Rome there are some very bad roads with profund holes that get tapped every now and then but later reopen due to the heavy traffic. If you are on roads that you drive often you almost automatically get the habit of avoiding them, also at higher speeds, because you know their exact locations by mind). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
In fact, the picture in this article does correspond to the description of grade4: Almost always an unpaved track prominently with soil/sand/grass, but with some hard materials, or compressed materials mixed in. Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is. There may be various degrees of softness to be measured. Could they be measured without too much hassle? The picture seems to give me a clue: the car is practically half-sunken in the ground. It kind of reminds me of how smoothness=very_bad is defined: high_clearance. However, the reason in the context of tracktype would be different: in smoothness, high clearance is required because of the shape of the surface. On tracktype, it would be required because the vehicle (heavy as it is and with wheels of some particular contact area) would otherwise sink that much into the ground. Lighter vehicles and those with larger wheels (larger contact areas) would be less likely to sink, even if smoothness is the same. At the same time, if you also think of surface shape, it's hard to argue it should be anything better than smoothness=very_horrible/specialized_off_road_wheels (tractor, ATV, tanks, trial, Mountain bike and all kind of off-highway vehicles). At least (subjectively) I wouldn't expect it to be passable by anything smaller than a tractor without imposing risks or severe difficulties. So, if applications used both tags as limiting factors, the driver would stay safe as long as mappers applied both tags. Still, there may be situations with near perfect smoothness and almost no firmness/durability; an extreme situation would be quicksand. David, I tried to search for images of the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland but none of the images I got would be tagged as tracktype=grade5. Do you have any example or any similar picture for what you've experienced? Or maybe a coordinate that we can have a peek at on Street View (either Google's or OpenStreetView)? On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 12:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com: That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk: http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm looking at those pictures it seems as if that's not even a track but a road. If it were a track or if you were to apply tracktype anyway to this, I do not see a reason why this cannot be e.g. grade4. It is obvious that bad weather (rain, but also snow and ice) can make a road unpassable. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com: Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is. There may be various degrees of softness to be measured. actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow dynamic. If the surface is unpaved it will depend a lot on past weather conditions whether a road is nice to use or not. The same road can be an unsurpassable mud inferno or frozen with lots of snow over it so it becomes nice and smooth, all dependent on the season. The russians had proposed a feature winter_road to account for some of these features, in different climatic conditions (e.g. with heavy rain periods) we might need additional tagging as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
The Russian winter roads situation is not unique. From what I have read, the same situation applies in some parts of Canada and Alaska. On March 20, 2014 10:58:01 AM CDT, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least expected to be permanent) when they happen. Sometimes it's due to poor administration, which changes only every 4 years. Sometimes it's due to poor construction, which costs a lot to fix. Sometimes it's due to weather, which in many cases is not inconstant through the seasons. But sometimes they are indeed dynamic/seasonal, though it's rare to see a large (say, from grade5 to grade1, or from horrible to good smoothness), so in these cases most people will choose to either approximate the average or the pessimistic scenario (not so much different from the average). When a large change happens (in case of a natural disaster, for instance, floods), it's either temporary (the situation goes back to normal) or permanent (it takes a long time to get fixed), but not recurring (if it's fixed within a year, most people won't expect it to happen again next year at the same place, but surely it could repeat if the fix was poorly conducted). So I think the case of the Russians (in fact, of snow) is quite unique. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com: Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is. There may be various degrees of softness to be measured. actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow dynamic. If the surface is unpaved it will depend a lot on past weather conditions whether a road is nice to use or not. The same road can be an unsurpassable mud inferno or frozen with lots of snow over it so it becomes nice and smooth, all dependent on the season. The russians had proposed a feature winter_road to account for some of these features, in different climatic conditions (e.g. with heavy rain periods) we might need additional tagging as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
What I mean is that the same idea does not apply so often and so extremely and in such a regular fashion and for long periods to other kinds of roads. That's why I said in fact, of snow. I would expect to see something very similar in southern Argentina and Chile, in Antarctica, in Greenland, and in Scandinavia. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: The Russian winter roads situation is not unique. From what I have read, the same situation applies in some parts of Canada and Alaska. On March 20, 2014 10:58:01 AM CDT, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least expected to be permanent) when they happen. Sometimes it's due to poor administration, which changes only every 4 years. Sometimes it's due to poor construction, which costs a lot to fix. Sometimes it's due to weather, which in many cases is not inconstant through the seasons. But sometimes they are indeed dynamic/seasonal, though it's rare to see a large (say, from grade5 to grade1, or from horrible to good smoothness), so in these cases most people will choose to either approximate the average or the pessimistic scenario (not so much different from the average). When a large change happens (in case of a natural disaster, for instance, floods), it's either temporary (the situation goes back to normal) or permanent (it takes a long time to get fixed), but not recurring (if it's fixed within a year, most people won't expect it to happen again next year at the same place, but surely it could repeat if the fix was poorly conducted). So I think the case of the Russians (in fact, of snow) is quite unique. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com: Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is. There may be various degrees of softness to be measured. actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow dynamic. If the surface is unpaved it will depend a lot on past weather conditions whether a road is nice to use or not. The same road can be an unsurpassable mud inferno or frozen with lots of snow over it so it becomes nice and smooth, all dependent on the season. The russians had proposed a feature winter_road to account for some of these features, in different climatic conditions (e.g. with heavy rain periods) we might need additional tagging as well. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin
2014-03-18 17:31 GMT+01:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: 4) interestingly, landuse=institution is not used at all, but landuse=institutional a bit (68 uses) yes, seems more consistent with the rest of the tags (e.g. we don't use landuse=commerce but commercial) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Access tags on areas containing highway=*
bulwersator wrote: In my opinion all relevant access tags should be on way and its nodes, otherwise it is unclear whatever road inherits access data from area. Yes, and it shouldn't be a goal to inherit access tags from surrounding areas. Even if mappers would consistently set layer=* on the way with the access tags, the one encircling that area, so that it would match the roads' layers, it's far too easy to have a bridge or anything inside that should, or shouldn't inherit the tags. Likely not on the proving grounds, but elsewhere. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
David Bannon wrote: Should I use this road or not ? tracktype= does claim to use that approach It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at documenting. The part about how well maintained on the Key:tracktype page was added later after the values. There is a connection, but tracktype wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about the most influential attribute of the road construction (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the conditions road users see on any ways not up to the highway standards of the present day. So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only to soft materials only. The connection to maintained is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a good approximation of the maintenance, but there can be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?) maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on exposed solid rock is hard materials only even if nobody ever raised a finger to build the way. A user can deduce expectations from the combination of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=* if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users. There can not be anything beyond soft materials only, that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used the tag to describe their assessment of should i use or not, the meaning of the tag has diverged from the use in other regions, and we'll never know which one was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in disagreement.) If mappers want to tag a subjective should i use it, it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user? -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin
johnw wrote: Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: there is a lot of stuff that isn't yet covered by the well introduced landuses, including: And somebody mentioned landuse=institutional at 68 uses. There's 332 cases of landuse=civil, which we have used for areas and plots used for state or municipality functions that don't fit in the industrial or commercial uses. They (civil features) don't exist to produce income (even if they somewhat do) so the commerce part is missing, but they exist because the society has deemed that it's necessary to make the things that they do happen; like kindergartens, hospitals, state ministeries, city offices, environmental agency offices, churches; and they don't exist to process or refine materials, or construct or physically maintain objects, like depots or the like (industrial). IMO normal commerial activies involve the assumption that the work people do there leads to something getting sold. The choise between civil and some other words is hidden somewhere in the wiki, but if i remember correctly, in the end civil was proposed by some native English speaker. until now, most of these simply got their specific tag to say what they are without any landuse. One can assume, that most areas tagged as leisure=* are silently implying landuse=leisure, and, say, amenity=school implies landuse=education - if that's a zoning category used in that country. If they're used to zoning them differently, the local consumers can map the tags like amenity=school to their zoning style. At least here the zoning plans include areas reserved for common functions; usually the zoning also allows commercial use, so if there's enough private entity interest, they don't have to rezone the plot. theatres and cinemas, restaurants and nightclubs On these, if on they have their own area, I'd go with retail or leisure. Of the mentioned cases, the following are imo clearly landuse=civil: -courthouses -Jails Prisons -parliaments and city counsels (and the levels in between) as well as supranational decision making -hospitals and clinics (here most of the private ones are inside a otherwise commercial building, so they wouldn't count) -public administration (with and without public access) -public services like police, fire, , border patrol, immigration, park ranger stations, customs areas -universities and schools and colleges landuse=Industrial -plow stations landuse=leisure: -skiing park, zoo, theme park, or other tourist attraction. -sports related areas Naturally, one could add the subtags as proposed with landuse=institutional. -- alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Landuse=civic_admin
2014-03-20 19:24 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: And somebody mentioned landuse=institutional at 68 uses. There's 332 cases of landuse=civil, which we have used for areas and plots used for state or municipality functions that don't fit in the industrial or commercial uses. They (civil features) don't exist to produce income (even if they somewhat do) so the commerce part is missing, but they exist because the society has deemed that it's necessary to make the things that they do happen; like kindergartens, hospitals, state ministeries, city offices, environmental agency offices, churches; and they don't exist to process or refine materials, or construct or physically maintain objects, like depots or the like (industrial). IMO normal commerial activies involve the assumption that the work people do there leads to something getting sold. OK, this is interesting, and very broad. Btw., the only docu I have found in the wiki for building=civic https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dcivic is a little bit strange, because it really promotes assigning the same building type to town halls, libraries and public swimming pools ;-) Would landuse=civic also include Concert-halls and theatres? Museums? But only if operated by the government or not for profit? Would you like to put up a proposal to discuss this and get some uniform docu when to use the tag and when not? What about a server farm? It's probably not industrial, by common classification I think it is put into the tertiary sector, still it is clearly there to produce profit (like all the businesses in the tertiary sector, e.g. telcos, mass media, hospitality industry (hotels, ski resorts), etc.) so it won't merit the landuse=civic tag, and we are probably still missing at least another landuse tag for those, unless it's offices (commercial) or a waste dumping ground. Or would you see it included in commercial? ...if that's a zoning category used in that country... it shouldn't matter if and how zoning is established in the country or region. We should have the same tagging scheme on a global level (IMHO). The landuse tag is not about zoning, or in other words what you are allowed to build on a given plot, but rather what is the actual current usage (on the ground rule). Do not feel tempted to think that's the same, it often really isn't ;-) landuse=leisure: -skiing park, zoo, theme park, or other tourist attraction. I think I understand what you are after, but I wouldn't put the word tourist attraction into the definition, because literally everything interesting can become a tourist attraction, I wouldn't see this as a class of objects on its own. A waterfall can be a tourist attraction, but this wouldn't make it a landuse=leisure, just like many churches are tourist attractions etc. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Opinion on meaning of tracktype, smoothness and surface for routing
Even so, we would still have to presume things about the driver's personality (an adventurous person would not care much about rougher surfaces, while a precaucious one would probably rather avoid them). We can pick a standard personality (we don't even know that very well without some statistics, do we?) or we can probe other people and then apply statistics on the results. Do you think my subjective sense is too off centre? Maybe you could provide speeds you think will be acceptable by most people and we can then compare and see how many people agree with each proposal, or disagree. If we get no further opinions, at least we can start with the average of our values, which is better than having them come from a single person whose experience may be distorted in some specific situations. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 15:02 GMT+01:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very subjective but that the road width is very objective. yes, the highway classification is slightly subjective but as osm shows, the cloud can usually find a commonly accepted values, so this doesn't seem to be a real problem (also because it doesn't really matter if a road is classified as secondary rather than primary, and more than one class up or down is usually not the range up to discussion). Of course everybody is free to add a road width as well, there is the tag width for this, and also the tag lanes. Unfortunately until now, only 5% of all highway-elements (admittedly not only roads) have the tag lanes and 1% has the tag width. Moreover, the width can be very easily measured with JOSM on Bing. you should be careful with the spherical mercator projection though, you might end up with different widths for the same width due to different latitudes, I am not sure how precise those measurements in JOSM actually are (some time ago they weren't but maybe this is fixed now). Of course, the closely related parameter is speed. related to width? I do not think there is a close relation, at least not a reliable one. While reading your texts, I've had a crazy idea: measuring vibration in the car. There are Android vibration measuring programs like Vibration Monitoring. Alas, car vibration is very much dependent on car suspension. But would some of us experiment this or another idea and come up with a solution? this sounds interesting indeed, while I agree that it mostly depends on the car suspension. With (unsuspended) bicycles this would be more reliable I guess, but still the ability of the driver / rider to avoid holes in the surface might make a huge difference (e.g. in Rome there are some very bad roads with profund holes that get tapped every now and then but later reopen due to the heavy traffic. If you are on roads that you drive often you almost automatically get the habit of avoiding them, also at higher speeds, because you know their exact locations by mind). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 11:50 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote: Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is. Trouble is Fernando, that in many cases the problem is not in fact 'softness', it could be rocks, ruts, slippery, steepness, angle (left/right) and lots more. The biggest issue along the Kennedy for example is large ruts or washaways in the road that can be difficult to see. Ruts are typically caused by the very large trucks used up there to move cattle or mining equipment and the washaways by the occasional, but intense, rain. reminds me of how smoothness=very_bad is defined: high_clearance. I have to admit that my problem with smoothness= is that its values seem so judgmental. The delightful road that I live on would be described as 'bad' Many Australians drive huge distances for the challenge of driving on roads smoothness=very_horrible. Just like 'softness' does not cover all issue, neither does 'smoothness'. smoothness= has a very good set of values and is well documented but not well used because of the name, smoothness, is incomplete and the values just a little offensive ! David, I tried to search for images of the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland but none of the images I got would be tagged as tracktype=grade5. Do you have any example or any similar picture for what you've experienced? Or maybe a coordinate that we can have a peek at on Street View (either Google's or OpenStreetView)? The northern sections of the Kennedy are in excellent condition, the 'interesting' bits are between the junction of the Gregory Dev Rd and, further south, the town of Hughenden. Street View does not go there. And, quite stupidly, we did not stop to take any photos. The road it self is very wide, mainly because the big trucks just swing wider when they come to sections that worry even them. That width is a blessing as you can get out of the way of one of those trucks when you see it approach. Its usually necessary to stop for awhile when you do encounter a big truck, the dust they put in the air makes driving quite unsafe. From what I understand, you have roads in similar condition in your part of the world ? David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Hi I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none. I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great, but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in the wiki) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. tracktype? surface? http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg This kind of track is often found in places with long-time settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important, their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles there are small tractors or motorbikes. Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas. Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time. http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe? Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough sometimes. Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time tracks are widely used. 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: David Bannon wrote: Should I use this road or not ? tracktype= does claim to use that approach It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at documenting. The part about how well maintained on the Key:tracktype page was added later after the values. There is a connection, but tracktype wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about the most influential attribute of the road construction (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the conditions road users see on any ways not up to the highway standards of the present day. So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only to soft materials only. The connection to maintained is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a good approximation of the maintenance, but there can be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?) maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on exposed solid rock is hard materials only even if nobody ever raised a finger to build the way. A user can deduce expectations from the combination of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=* if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users. There can not be anything beyond soft materials only, that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used the tag to describe their assessment of should i use or not, the meaning of the tag has diverged from the use in other regions, and we'll never know which one was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in disagreement.) If mappers want to tag a subjective should i use it, it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user? -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Opinion on meaning of tracktype, smoothness and surface for routing
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:02 +0100, André Pirard wrote: Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very subjective but that the road width is very objective. Moreover, the width can be very easily measured with JOSM on Bing. Andre, I guess we can measure the width of a road to a reasonable accuracy via sat images. But I am not sure what that tells us. We cannot assume a relationship between width and quality of the road can we ? Not here in Australia anyway, many of the outback roads that are typical of the subject of this discussion are quite wide, wider than some of our fancy freeways closer to population centers. If we wanted to measure vibration I guess we could have a process to calibrate individual car's suspension. Maybe something like driving over a set of steel pipes of defined size a defined distance apart ? However, I doubt if we'd achieve anything useful, the sort of roads we are talking about are usually quite erratic, smooth sections then substantial holes or what ever. You slow down for the holes or you break something ! But interesting idea David Of course, the closely related parameter is speed. Two other optimizing data for routing appear to be readily available: declivity as contour lines and straightness which is computable from the map of the road. I think that the only left parameter (beside varying weather, of course) is what you deal with: surface. Not only will the car be hopping? but also is it slippery?, the latter only as a local condition. If we could find an indisputable value for road surface, we could build a very valuable routing database, probably innovative but unfortunately easy to steal. But could we find an objective measure of the surface? That is, such that everyone comes the the same value, not subjective. While reading your texts, I've had a crazy idea: measuring vibration in the car. There are Android vibration measuring programs like Vibration Monitoring. Alas, car vibration is very much dependent on car suspension. But would some of us experiment this or another idea and come up with a solution? Wouldn't it be great to organize a well thought out worldwide road quality tagging party? Sadly, traffic restriction tagging is in a miserable state. People even laugh at me, and that is at themselves, when I talk of GPS. More of this later, I hope. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Vali, great contribution to the discussion. The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' ! tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info for bike or walkers. I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word smoothness and the assigned values. Sigh Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its called tagging for renderers, punishable by death but happens all the time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people consider this fact when choosing which tag to use. Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If promoted it could be whats needed ? David On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote: Hi I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none. I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great, but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in the wiki) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. tracktype? surface? http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg This kind of track is often found in places with long-time settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important, their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles there are small tractors or motorbikes. Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas. Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time. http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe? Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough sometimes. Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time tracks are widely used. 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: David Bannon wrote: Should I use this road or not ? tracktype= does claim to use that approach It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at documenting. The part about how well maintained on the Key:tracktype page was added later after the values. There is a connection, but tracktype wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about the most influential attribute of the road construction (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the conditions road users see on any ways not up to the highway standards of the present day. So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only to soft materials only. The connection to maintained is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a good approximation of the maintenance, but there can be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?) maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on exposed solid rock is hard materials only even if nobody ever raised a finger to build the way. A user can deduce expectations from the combination of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=* if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users. There can not be anything beyond soft materials only, that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Thanks David I don't like smoothness values either. Problem is this key does't take in account other things that can prevent certain type of vehicles from using that type of track. I put an example in the last pic with a track with good surface but everything else is not so good. At first I saw tracktype something like a general state of the track but I see it is not. I am glad I didn't tag any of those tracks with it. 2014-03-20 23:36 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Vali, great contribution to the discussion. The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' ! tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info for bike or walkers. I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word smoothness and the assigned values. Sigh Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its called tagging for renderers, punishable by death but happens all the time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people consider this fact when choosing which tag to use. Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If promoted it could be whats needed ? David On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote: Hi I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none. I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great, but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in the wiki) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. tracktype? surface? http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg This kind of track is often found in places with long-time settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important, their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles there are small tractors or motorbikes. Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas. Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time. http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe? Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough sometimes. Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time tracks are widely used. 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: David Bannon wrote: Should I use this road or not ? tracktype= does claim to use that approach It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at documenting. The part about how well maintained on the Key:tracktype page was added later after the values. There is a connection, but tracktype wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about the most influential attribute of the road construction (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the conditions road users see on any ways not up to the highway standards of the present day. So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only to soft materials only. The connection to maintained is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a good approximation of the maintenance, but there can be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?) maintain
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
Vali, those are some of the nastiest tracks I've ever seen. No ordinary car is going to be traversing those and even most 4WD will be forced to drive very slowly in order to avoid the bigger, protruding rocks. As for tracktype, there is no grade type to describe them unless we extend the grade scheme to 6 or 7 or beyond, as many suggested, or alternatively, create new tags 4WD_only=yes/no, and possibly HC_4WD_only=yes/no. It's also obvious that surface of rocky needs to be dealt with somehow. Most of these have a very horrible surface. Setting aside the fact that maxspeed refers to _legal_ maximums, I would be tempted to add a maxspeed=5 or lower as well to help routers make decisions. I have incorrectly used maxspeed in the past to suggest the suitability of a road for travel. I have also used surface_condition, as in surface_condition=Rough_less_than_40kph in the past. There were many examples of this usage in Taginfo and I was reluctant to use tracktype to describe a highway when I first started mapping. What about some sort of speed tag, a new one, perhaps trackspeed or comfortable_speed? On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:36 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.netwrote: Vali, great contribution to the discussion. The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' ! tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info for bike or walkers. I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word smoothness and the assigned values. Sigh Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its called tagging for renderers, punishable by death but happens all the time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=. Some evil people consider this fact when choosing which tag to use. Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ? If promoted it could be whats needed ? David On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote: Hi I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none. I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great, but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in the wiki) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. tracktype? surface? http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg This kind of track is often found in places with long-time settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important, their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles there are small tractors or motorbikes. Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas. Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time. http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe? Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough sometimes. Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time tracks are widely used. 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: David Bannon wrote: Should I use this road or not ? tracktype= does claim to use that approach It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at documenting. The part about how well maintained on the Key:tracktype page was added later after the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com: I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they were wide enough) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg - path http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg grade5 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg path or tracktype=grade4 or 5 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg - path http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg tracktype 3 probably thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the hills, in remote areas). You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a pickup or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but often there is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate, or maybe footway). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
I generally agree with Martin's assessment. None of these tracks is all that suitable for getting from one place to another in any reasonable amount of time, if ever. The photos point out quite well the limitations of the tracktype definitions. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com: I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they were wide enough) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg - path http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg grade5 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg path or tracktype=grade4 or 5 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg - path http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg tracktype 3 probably thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the hills, in remote areas). You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a pickup or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but often there is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate, or maybe footway). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
I believe I understand exactly what you mean, David, and I fully agree. We could start by advising people to use the values for smoothness in their descriptions. If so many people agree that the current values are inappropriate, let's write a proposal for the new values, get it approved (should be easy) and recommend against using the old (current) values. Even if we do so, I think both tags are necessary to assess beforehand how safe it is to pass, or how fun it would be (if that's what you're seeking). So you can use both to describe different aspects of the surface. (I kinda think you want to pursue a single tag - either smoothness or track, but not both -, that may be an impossible task considering all the discussions we've had so far. I tried to propose that actually, and there was no interest.) Regarding what Vali said, I would have tagged most of the examples as paths. But I'm biased by the fact that, in Brazil, we have agreed to use highway=track only when the way is wide enough for a car to get through. I understand that the distinction between path and track is a much bigger, sort of unresolved issue. Below is how I would have tagged each of Vali's examples. (I usually don't add mtb:scale and sac_scale on roads, but do on tracks and paths.) I'll borrow the opportunity to mention how my proposal to the OSRM (car profile) would have treated these cases (tell me your suggestions), listing two factors it tries to guess: a maximum safe speed, and a level of effort (for which 1 means no effort, 2 means you'd rather choose a way 2x as long if its surface was very smooth, solid and well maintained). Tell me what you think: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg highway=path + smoothness=off_road_wheels + tracktype=grade2 + mtb:scale=3 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky * Expected safe speed (if wide as track): ~4kmph, limited by smoothness. * Effort level: 15, set by smoothness. Rationale: it's not wide enough for a car, so it's not a track. If it were, it would need to be an off road vehicle (just high clearance won't do if I'm aiming at safety). The material is not entirely solid, not an even mixture, it's in between, so grade2. http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg highway=path + smoothness=off_road_wheels + tracktype=grade2 + mtb:scale=2 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg highway=track + smoothness=high_clearance + tracktype=grade2 + mtb:scale=1 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky * Expected safe speed: ~10kmph, limited by smoothness. * Effort level: 7, set by smoothness. http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg highway=track + smoothness=high_clearance + tracktype=grade2 + mtb:scale=2 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg highway=path + smoothness=robust_wheels + tracktype=grade4 + mtb:scale=0 + sac_scale=hiking + surface=earth * Expected safe speed (if wide as track): ~20kmph, limited by tracktype and smoothness (both yield the same limit). * Effort level: 4, set by smoothness. (Tracktype is almost the main factor, with an effort level of 3.) http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg highway=path + smoothness=robust_wheels + tracktype=grade4 + mtb:scale=1 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=earth http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg highway=path + smoothness=robust_wheels + tracktype=grade4 + mtb:scale=0 + sac_scale=hiking + surface=earth The first case is actually a dillemma I had for the OSRM proposal. I did consider smoothness=off_road_wheels as routable for an average car hoping this way I wouldn't derange many people by making their tracks suddenly inaccessible in OSRM. I'm not sure about this decision, maybe the speed should be even lower or the effort much higher to avoid them more, or maybe they shouldn't be routable at all for an average car. Another note: the tagging I did above is following the text in the wiki, but the pictures for smoothness at the bad end of the scale seem out of sync. I think a high clearance vehicle can go through a way as in the image for off_road_wheels (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/4f/Jena_Trackexample_profile.jpg), that an off road vehicle can go through a way as in the image for specialized_off_road_wheels (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Mountain-track5.jpg). I also think that a tank or an ATV (specialized_off_road_wheels) can go through impassable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/16/Smoothness_impassable.JPG). On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:36 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Vali, great contribution to the discussion. The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' ! tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info for bike or walkers. I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word smoothness and the assigned values.
Re: [Tagging] Opinion on meaning of tracktype, smoothness and surface for routing
We can't assume a relationship with road quality but I think we can assume some approximate relationship with maximum safe speed. No matter how smooth and well maintained a narrow (say 3m wide) road is, you can't drive safely at 90kmph on it, specially if it has curves. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:18 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:02 +0100, André Pirard wrote: Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very subjective but that the road width is very objective. Moreover, the width can be very easily measured with JOSM on Bing. Andre, I guess we can measure the width of a road to a reasonable accuracy via sat images. But I am not sure what that tells us. We cannot assume a relationship between width and quality of the road can we ? Not here in Australia anyway, many of the outback roads that are typical of the subject of this discussion are quite wide, wider than some of our fancy freeways closer to population centers. If we wanted to measure vibration I guess we could have a process to calibrate individual car's suspension. Maybe something like driving over a set of steel pipes of defined size a defined distance apart ? However, I doubt if we'd achieve anything useful, the sort of roads we are talking about are usually quite erratic, smooth sections then substantial holes or what ever. You slow down for the holes or you break something ! But interesting idea David Of course, the closely related parameter is speed. Two other optimizing data for routing appear to be readily available: declivity as contour lines and straightness which is computable from the map of the road. I think that the only left parameter (beside varying weather, of course) is what you deal with: surface. Not only will the car be hopping? but also is it slippery?, the latter only as a local condition. If we could find an indisputable value for road surface, we could build a very valuable routing database, probably innovative but unfortunately easy to steal. But could we find an objective measure of the surface? That is, such that everyone comes the the same value, not subjective. While reading your texts, I've had a crazy idea: measuring vibration in the car. There are Android vibration measuring programs like Vibration Monitoring. Alas, car vibration is very much dependent on car suspension. But would some of us experiment this or another idea and come up with a solution? Wouldn't it be great to organize a well thought out worldwide road quality tagging party? Sadly, traffic restriction tagging is in a miserable state. People even laugh at me, and that is at themselves, when I talk of GPS. More of this later, I hope. Cheers, André. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg grade5? In the wiki: Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard materials, uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, with surface of soil/sand/grass. So if you guys agree that this is grade5 (or worse), what's written in the wiki is far from accurate. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com: I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they were wide enough) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg - path http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg grade5 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg path or tracktype=grade4 or 5 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg - path http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg tracktype 3 probably thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the hills, in remote areas). You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a pickup or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but often there is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate, or maybe footway). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth
But at least now I know I need to review my values more pessimistically. (Which is what I wanted after all.) On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg grade5? In the wiki: Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard materials, uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, with surface of soil/sand/grass. So if you guys agree that this is grade5 (or worse), what's written in the wiki is far from accurate. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com: I have some pics to show what I am talking about: http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they were wide enough) http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg - path http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg grade5 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg path or tracktype=grade4 or 5 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg - path http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg tracktype 3 probably thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the hills, in remote areas). You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a pickup or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but often there is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate, or maybe footway). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
