Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
2014-06-06 2:28 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: Janko, I am sure you don't mean to suggest we should tag the world so some particular maps look nice ? Personally, I think nice maps are accurate, informative ones. Visually appeal is important too but not at the expense of 'informative'. I support Greg's approach. Informative is what I was talking about, but I used the word nice. Dotted lines are not as easy to follow as full lines. Imagine a city full of dotted lines. It's going to be a mess, and the map is going to be hard to use. Anyway, we are talking about rendering on a mailing list about tagging, so we are a bit off-topic. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
I agree that unpaved roads need to be rendered differently than paved roads. In wet weather, particularly in areas with clay soil, unpaved roads may be completely impassable. On June 4, 2014 6:22:33 PM CDT, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote: SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk writes: Some (but very few) BOATs near me say service road to you when you look at them; most just say track or even bridleway. The only unclassified ones I can find are as a result of some newbie's* mapping and probably could benefit from a resurvey to see if they're best described as service roads or something else. I certainly wouldn't use highway=road if I'd been and had a look, as that implies that no survey has taken place. Essentially - map the physical and legal attributes separately; but map both as accurately as you can. I may be alone in thinking this, but I find the legal Right of Way notion to be critical, and an important distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=track or highway=service. A highway=unclassified is in my view more or less by definition open to use by the public, even if it's what is in the US a private way. And at least in Massachusetts, such a road is almost always a distinct parcel in terms of land ownership (or owned by the town as space between other parcels). A highway=service is almost always not a publically-accessible right of way, and usually does not have a separate parcel. It's almost always access=private, access=customers or access=permissive, and almost never access=yes. Highway=track is legally similar to highway=serice, except that it tends to be physically much lower quality. So the description of BOAT sounds very much like highway=unclassified, and arguably with physical tags. I wonder if the definition of service and track should have implicit access=permissive as a best-guess default, rather than the access=yes associated with unclassified. (That raises the issue of a way to show access=customers as some color other than red or green.) Sort of related, there's a long-standing issue that dirt roads (e.g., highway=residential surface=unpaved) do not get rendered differently, and this can lead people to wrongly mark them as tracks, when legally they are roads. I suspect that people in all-paved and people in zero-paved areas don't see this as important, but I live in a town where some people live on dirt roards, and was recently in an area of Vermont where many roads are not paved, and it's a big deal in route planning. Perhaps now with carto it's just a question of someone sending a patch, but it seems like there has been reluctance to render unpaved roads differently. ___ 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] highway=track access
On 5 June 2014 14:22, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: I agree that unpaved roads need to be rendered differently than paved roads. In wet weather, particularly in areas with clay soil, unpaved roads may be completely impassable. If you are talking about the rendering on the default map: see also https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 . -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Greg Troxel wrote: I may be alone in thinking this, but I find the legal Right of Way notion to be critical, and an important distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=track or highway=service. Well, ish - but what's important is that all aspects that can be mapped (legal, physical, etc.) are. I'd always apply the duck test to something to decide between unclassified, service and track, and if separate information is available about legal access, add that too. Here, for example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/50733252 is something that has the same legal access as an unclassified road (legally it is a road) but physically it's far from it, hence highway=track. So the description of BOAT sounds very much like highway=unclassified, and arguably with physical tags. No, it's a specific England-and-Wales legal designation that implies certain access rules. Sort of related, there's a long-standing issue that dirt roads (e.g., highway=residential surface=unpaved) do not get rendered differently, and this can lead people to wrongly mark them as tracks, when legally they are roads. I suspect that people in all-paved and people in zero-paved areas don't see this as important, but I live in a town where some people live on dirt roards, and was recently in an area of Vermont where many roads are not paved, and it's a big deal in route planning. Perhaps now with carto it's just a question of someone sending a patch, but it seems like there has been reluctance to render unpaved roads differently. I don't think that one patch is going to cut it here. What's important to one group of map users in one area is very different to what's useful to another somewhere else. The standard map style is already very fussy in some respects (does path really need a separate rendering from footway et al?), and other maps made with OSM data (including Mapquest's and http://www.openstreetmap.de/karte.html) tend to be a bit less busy. Adding more detail makes it more useful to you but makes it less useful to someone else. For me on foot, legal rights-of-way (designation in England-and-Wales-speak) is what's important, so maps that I create for my own use always incorporate that. You in Vermont would no doubt want something different, just as the German community did, and the HOT / osm-fr people did. If you're prepared to (mis)use existing styling elements from the current map, you don't even have to touch the map style at all - just rewrite the data as it goes into the rendering database (1) (if you're talking about a web map) or edit the mappings in the style file (2) (the equivalent for a Garmin map). If you just want Vermont, then based on the PBF extract size at Geofabrik, you could probably render all the tiles down to a reasonable zoom level and fit it on an SD card on your phone, so a small virtual server set up as per (3) sat on a desktop or laptop PC is more than capable of handling it. Cheers, Andy 1) https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/master/README_lua.md 2) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mkgmap/help/Custom_styles 3) http://switch2osm.org/loading-osm-data/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Sure, I realize I can (with enough spare time) render what I want. The mkgmap style I have does in fact mark dirt roads (by abusing track, as you suggest, which needs fixing), and I'll get around to making osmand show them too. My point was that for almost all map users (in cars or road bikes), knowing if a road is dirt is very important. Having something in the default render means other mappers are more likely to be aware of the paved/not status and fix it. So I really am talking about the default style, not what anyone else can do. As for style, I mean something as simple as dashed casings when unpaved, similar to a lot of exiting road maps. I don't think this adds clutter - there will just be a few pixels missing, and most people will understand it without even looking that the key given usage in other maps. (I can certainly see why the default style wouldn't render lots of things (radio towers, for instance), so I'm not trying to suggest a map-nerd default render.) pgpPSk53hLVCG.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
2014-06-05 17:15 GMT+02:00 SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk: is something that has the same legal access as an unclassified road (legally it is a road) but physically it's far from it, hence highway=track. my duck-test would go like this: if a road is serving to connect a place (e.g. a hamlet, village) and is used by people going to this place then it is at least unclassified, if instead it is used only by farmers to access their fields, then it is a track. I don't know what the physical appearance of a track is, as I have seen all kinds of them, from perfectly paved with smooth surface to very uneven grass track hardly recognizable. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
2014-06-05 17:25 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com: As for style, I mean something as simple as dashed casings when unpaved, similar to a lot of exiting road maps. I don't think this adds clutter - there will just be a few pixels missing, and most people will understand it without even looking that the key given usage in other maps. What about countries where 90% of roads are unpaved? That's not going to look very nice. The solution could be that the starting OSM page should default to some pretty minimal map, and then one of the optional maps would be this map that is designed for mappers. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
On Thu, 2014-06-05 at 22:31 +0200, Janko Mihelić wrote: (Greg) As for style, I mean something as simple as dashed casings when unpaved, What about countries where 90% of roads are unpaved? That's not going to look very nice. Janko, I am sure you don't mean to suggest we should tag the world so some particular maps look nice ? Personally, I think nice maps are accurate, informative ones. Visually appeal is important too but not at the expense of 'informative'. I support Greg's approach. David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
SomeoneElse li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk writes: Some (but very few) BOATs near me say service road to you when you look at them; most just say track or even bridleway. The only unclassified ones I can find are as a result of some newbie's* mapping and probably could benefit from a resurvey to see if they're best described as service roads or something else. I certainly wouldn't use highway=road if I'd been and had a look, as that implies that no survey has taken place. Essentially - map the physical and legal attributes separately; but map both as accurately as you can. I may be alone in thinking this, but I find the legal Right of Way notion to be critical, and an important distinction between highway=unclassified and highway=track or highway=service. A highway=unclassified is in my view more or less by definition open to use by the public, even if it's what is in the US a private way. And at least in Massachusetts, such a road is almost always a distinct parcel in terms of land ownership (or owned by the town as space between other parcels). A highway=service is almost always not a publically-accessible right of way, and usually does not have a separate parcel. It's almost always access=private, access=customers or access=permissive, and almost never access=yes. Highway=track is legally similar to highway=serice, except that it tends to be physically much lower quality. So the description of BOAT sounds very much like highway=unclassified, and arguably with physical tags. I wonder if the definition of service and track should have implicit access=permissive as a best-guess default, rather than the access=yes associated with unclassified. (That raises the issue of a way to show access=customers as some color other than red or green.) Sort of related, there's a long-standing issue that dirt roads (e.g., highway=residential surface=unpaved) do not get rendered differently, and this can lead people to wrongly mark them as tracks, when legally they are roads. I suspect that people in all-paved and people in zero-paved areas don't see this as important, but I live in a town where some people live on dirt roards, and was recently in an area of Vermont where many roads are not paved, and it's a big deal in route planning. Perhaps now with carto it's just a question of someone sending a patch, but it seems like there has been reluctance to render unpaved roads differently. pgpmxtPEsVtcR.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: Byway looks like a highway=service + service=byway + surface=unpaved to me. They're not necessarily service roads --- they don't have to lead to any premises at all; they're simply minor roads, usually unsealed. __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
2014-06-03 8:55 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com: They're not necessarily service roads --- they don't have to lead to any premises at all; they're simply minor roads, usually unsealed. Then maybe: highway=unclassified + unclassified=byway + surface=unpaved? Or highway=road + road=byway + surface=unpaved. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Janko Mihelic' wrote:
2014-06-03 8:55 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com
mailto:jcg.stu...@gmail.com:
They're not necessarily service roads --- they don't have to lead to
any premises at all; they're simply minor roads, usually unsealed.
Then maybe:
highway=unclassified + unclassified=byway + surface=unpaved?
Or highway=road + road=byway + surface=unpaved.
Some (but very few) BOATs near me say service road to you when you
look at them; most just say track or even bridleway. The only
unclassified ones I can find are as a result of some newbie's* mapping
and probably could benefit from a resurvey to see if they're best
described as service roads or something else. I certainly wouldn't use
highway=road if I'd been and had a look, as that implies that no survey
has taken place.
Essentially - map the physical and legal attributes separately; but map
both as accurately as you can.
Cheers,
Andy
* me, back in 2009. The overpass query for info was:
osm-script output=json timeout=25
!-- gather results --
query type=way
has-kv k=highway v=unclassified/
has-kv k=designation v=byway_open_to_all_traffic/
bbox-query {{bbox}}/
/query
!-- print results --
print mode=body/
recurse type=down/
print mode=skeleton order=quadtile/
/osm-script
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Dave F. wrote: I believe byway shouldn't be deprecated. In my area most of them are signed as just 'byway' on the ground. I think that it varies greatly by area. Some highway authorities use just Byway; some have more explicit signage; some in some cases none at all. I think many that have been tagged with designation=* have been sourced from OS data. There's always the risk that people who didn't quite get the memo do this (just as the occasional source=Google Maps still appears). I can think of one example back in 2012: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-April/013098.html where a number of externally-sourced designations seemed to be used. I've since resurveyed a fair number of those, and in many cases they were now signed as byways; where they weren't I changed the designation back to the signage on the ground. Here's one example of an area that on resurvey was actually far more complicated than either my original tagging or what it had been armchaired to: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/52.88254/-0.74203 Can you think of a specific example where something has been tagged with designation=*, isn't signed on the ground and must have been sourced from the OS (or other incompatible data)? Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Well highway=byway is a very UK specific thing so global renders and routing won't pick it up. Its also not a legal thing in itself. The council can provide the actual status. Where are these? Also there is the suspected:designation=* tag if you're not sure. R On 30 May 2014 08:28, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 21/05/2014 23:28, Rob Nickerson wrote: Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing... Hi Rob I believe byway shouldn't be deprecated. In my area most of them are signed as just 'byway' on the ground. There is no indication of their legal status (BOATs etc), AFAIA, there is no non copyrighted source for these. I think many that have been tagged with designation=* have been sourced from OS data. Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Byway looks like a highway=service + service=byway + surface=unpaved to me. 2014-05-31 0:16 GMT+02:00 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com: Well highway=byway is a very UK specific thing so global renders and routing won't pick it up. Its also not a legal thing in itself. The council can provide the actual status. Where are these? Also there is the suspected:designation=* tag if you're not sure. R On 30 May 2014 08:28, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: On 21/05/2014 23:28, Rob Nickerson wrote: Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing... Hi Rob I believe byway shouldn't be deprecated. In my area most of them are signed as just 'byway' on the ground. There is no indication of their legal status (BOATs etc), AFAIA, there is no non copyrighted source for these. I think many that have been tagged with designation=* have been sourced from OS data. Cheers Dave F. --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com ___ 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] highway=track access
On 2014-05-21 at 08:48:41 +1000, David Bannon wrote: Sorry Martin, must disagree. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype was intended to apply to all roads. Please see the wiki page, note it complains that renderers treat it elaboration on just highway=track, which is contradictory to its proposal. wasn't the original post about highway=track and not tracktype? -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Going slightly off topic, I notice the UK listing is missing byway, a recognised highway classification. Dave F. Hi Dave, The highway=byway tag is deprcated: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dbyway The legal status of UK Rights of Way now belong in the designation tag, and the highway is tagged with an appropriate value (mostly track, but could be service if part of the route is now a paved road (e.g. an access driveway to a property along the right of way): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Public_rights_of_way_in_England_and_Wales#Byways Best, Rob ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
On 2014-05-19 at 19:05:30 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: There are almost 8m highway=track objects in the database (thanks taginfo!), third only to =residential and =service (thanks TIGER!). I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. In Italy if I saw a track I would assume that unless there is a sign or a gate I would be legally allowed to drive on it, but I would probably have no reason to do it, since it would only lead to farms or woods, and even if it wasn't a dead end there would be a better road to the same destination. There are lots of tracks that do have signs and gates preventing access to the general public, probably more than other types of highway (except maybe residential) but in that case I would expect this to be specified on OSM with proper access tags As for routing, the consequence of all this is that I would expect tracks to be considered for routing (if access keys allows it) but only at a very low priority. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
I would like to add a cyclist's comment for Italy. In the Po valley we have numerous waterways of all sizes many of which have paths/tracks/roads on the embankment. For cyclists there are three kinds of problems, regarding access: one is legal, the other two are physical: 1) Many have the sign Access forbidden for all vehicles (white disk with red rim), including bicycles. In practice in most cases bicycles are tolerated, In many cases even official bicycle routes use such tracks/roads. There is no consensus, afaik, on how to tag these. I use bicycle=permissive. 2) Many of these tracks are in many points blocked by barriers, which a normal cyclist or pedestrian can pass on the side, but where a tandem or a cycle with trailer (or a wheelchair) does not pass. I try to tag them as barriers with width indication, but most of them are even not present in the data. 3) Many cycle paths or cycle-pedestrian paths are blocked by chicane-type bicycle barriers (barriers of the same type and dimensions that are used here in Italy to prevent motorcycles from using cycle paths are used elsewhere, for example in Germany, to prevent bicycles to use a pedestrian-only path). These barriers are annoying, sometimes dangerous, but in particular prevent in many cases the passage of tandems and cycle-trailers. Apart from that, tracks suffer from a lack of specification in the tags of their suitability for bicycle use (tracktype, smoothness), but that is another problem. In Italy if I saw a track I would assume that unless there is a sign or a gate I would be legally allowed to drive on it, but I would probably have no reason to do it, since it would only lead to farms or woods, and even if it wasn't a dead end there would be a better road to the same destination. There are lots of tracks that do have signs and gates preventing access to the general public, probably more than other types of highway (except maybe residential) but in that case I would expect this to be specified on OSM with proper access tags As for routing, the consequence of all this is that I would expect tracks to be considered for routing (if access keys allows it) but only at a very low priority. -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
2014-05-20 0:33 GMT+02:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net: I Australia, 'track' generally means a road that is badly maintained or not maintained at all. Almost certainly unsealed. Some short and some quite long. Some of the longer ones are important connecting or tourist roads. In my opinion you shouldn't use the osm tags highway=track for important connecting roads or tourist roads, even if you call them tracks in everyday live, and even if they aren't paved. Better use the highway tag according to its definition (importance of connection) and use something like unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary together with surface-tags. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Following from this discussion about rendering (https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110#issuecomment-31613867), it should make some sense to assume that tracks with tracktype=grade1/grade2 are physically capable of traffic and therefore usable/accessible (though at lower speed and greater care) unless other tags restrict it. So, it would make sense to restrict them by country only when the local community assumes they show up in a specific context that restricts access, such as private property (farms) or state controlled areas (forest) or so. Tracks are usually physically possible for mountain bikes, and probably to city bikes too (though not quite adequate), as well as wheelchair on tracktype=grade1, so they would only be inaccessible if forbidden by law. Btw, I'm in Brazil. Here the popular opinion is that the single major difference between OSM's tracks and paths worldwide is the physical possibility of standard motor vehicle traffic (very inadequate or simply impossible on paths, but possible, though perhaps difficult, on tracks). If it's private/restricted by law, we also add access=private/no (similar to service ways). Surely in countries where tracks are assumed to be private, one would add access=yes/permissive/destination for the exceptions. On that list in the wiki, only Denmark restricts access to tracks completely. I find interesting that in Germany there is ongoing discussion about making them destination - that should make them routable at least for departure/arrival. On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl wrote: On 19 May 2014 19:05, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. In Luxembourg, highway=track normally cannot be used by vehicles. Most of them have currently no access tag. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 Nullius in verba. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:58 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: In my opinion you shouldn't use the osm tags highway=track for important connecting roads or tourist roads, even if you call them tracks in everyday live, and even if they aren't paved. Better use the highway tag according to its definition (importance of connection) and use something like unclassified, tertiary, secondary, primary together with surface-tags. Sorry Martin, must disagree. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype was intended to apply to all roads. Please see the wiki page, note it complains that renderers treat it elaboration on just highway=track, which is contradictory to its proposal. The definition of highway= is quite clear, it should be based on the intended purpose of the road. So [unclassified, tertiary, secondary ...]. That gives no indication of its state or likely maintenance level. That means something like tracktype=, a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road. Now, I object to seeing reference to minor road there, think thats new ! Please remember that roads around the world vary over quite a wide range, its very easy for people who live in places where all roads are well maintained to dismiss the importance of poorly maintained roads, or ones not maintained at all. There has been a lot (and I mean a lot) of discussion about a new and better tag or redefining an existing tag to warn potential users of what may a dangerous road to some people. However, little progress has been made. I consider it very important in a large percentage of the worlds land area. However, it does not interest most of the world's mappers ! David ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] highway=track access
Hi all, There are almost 8m highway=track objects in the database (thanks taginfo!), third only to =residential and =service (thanks TIGER!). I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. Here in the UK, for example, highway=track is often used for private farm tracks, so you can't safely route over it unless access tags have been added. But evidently that's not always the case elsewhere. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions has suggestions for a few countries, but is missing some pretty major ones, such as the US and the Netherlands. cheers Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
In Poland all road types are assumed to imply access=yes (at least in my experience). On Mon, 19 May 2014 11:05:30 -0700 Richard Fairhurst lt;rich...@systemed.netgt; wrote Hi all, There are almost 8m highway=track objects in the database (thanks taginfo!), third only to =residential and =service (thanks TIGER!). I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. Here in the UK, for example, highway=track is often used for private farm tracks, so you can't safely route over it unless access tags have been added. But evidently that's not always the case elsewhere. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions has suggestions for a few countries, but is missing some pretty major ones, such as the US and the Netherlands. cheers Richard ___ 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] highway=track access
On 19 May 2014 19:05, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. In Luxembourg, highway=track normally cannot be used by vehicles. Most of them have currently no access tag. -- Matthijs ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Hi all, There are almost 8m highway=track objects in the database (thanks taginfo!), third only to =residential and =service (thanks TIGER!). I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. Here in the UK, for example, highway=track is often used for private farm tracks, so you can't safely route over it unless access tags have been added. But evidently that's not always the case elsewhere. Here's how I'd interpret a highway=track with no access tabs in England or Wales (or at least the bits that I tend to frequent), particularly with regard to foot access: 1) If it's got no other tags on it (e.g. no surface or tracktype tags), then there's a risk been added from imagery alone, and I wouldn't assume that I could route over it (especially not to get me home before dark on a circular route). 2) If it's got any sort of other tags on it (surface, tracktype, designation, width, mtb_scale) I'd assume that someone's been down there, so access is at least not physically prevented. I also find background GPS layer that iD uses for this useful (though I doubt that you could do much with that?). It doesn't mean that access is legal though, so I wouldn't assume that I could use it. 3) If I was recommending to someone else whether or not to take a route over a highway=track in England or Wales, I wouldn't suggest it unless it had either explicit access tags (or a designation tag that suggests that it ought to have an access tag). Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] highway=track access
On Mon, 2014-05-19 at 19:05 +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: I'm interested to know what level of access people believe this implies in their home countries. I Australia, 'track' generally means a road that is badly maintained or not maintained at all. Almost certainly unsealed. Some short and some quite long. Some of the longer ones are important connecting or tourist roads. Generally, Australian roads in OSM are (legally) public access. However, lots of tracks while legal are very difficult to drive due to the conditions. I have in the past campaigned to have rendering reflect that difficulty based on the tracktype tag but not sufficient interest. We'll just have to wait for the coroners report... David Here in the UK, for example, highway=track is often used for private farm tracks, so you can't safely route over it unless access tags have been added. But evidently that's not always the case elsewhere. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions has suggestions for a few countries, but is missing some pretty major ones, such as the US and the Netherlands. cheers Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
