Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/3 Dave Swarthout wrote: Me either, but there it is. I wouldn't give it much chance of gathering world wide approval as a classification term but maybe I'm wrong. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Tod Fitch t...@fitchdesign.com wrote: I didn't think it was a word and my old American dictionary does not have it. But my microprint edition of the Oxford English Dictionary does have it and lists it use in 1899 regarding how the streets in London were able to carry traffic. Certainly not a word that I, as an American English speaker, would have come up with. -Tod On Jan 3, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: On 03/01/14 16:06, Volker Schmidt wrote: I first reacted in the same way (is it an English word at all?). But then I looked it up on Wikipedia. There it is, since 2006(!), with correct Google translations in several other languages. Well, the English wikipedia is also used by people whose first language is American rather than English! :) The online definitions for it that I've seen seem to be mostly in American dictionaries, with this Australian one: http://vro.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/soilhealth_traffic which actually talks about things from the ground's point of view, rather than the vehicle's, and so has a different meaning to the proposal. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? None of them. I think it's a bad idea to tag interpretations. You look at a road and see whether it's passable or not. But what do you see in reality? You cannot see any kind of usability, this is only an interpretation of you. You see obstacles? What obstacles? Water, sand, grave, rocks? What does this mean to all road users? You may have a well built motorway in a very good state. But for you it's impassable. Why? Well, you are taxiing an A380. Or you are going by bike or on foot. You want to cross a river? No bridge? No problem, you are driving a hovercraft. Or there is a bridge, but it is impassable because you are driving a tank and the bridge would collapse. Even if two people are going by the same class of vehicle, the way may be passable only to one of them. I know a mountain-biker who has fun if the way is a blind end in front of a river with a depth of less than 1 m, followed by 200 m of mud and 500 m of scrub before reaching the next way. Some people would describe the way up to Mount Everest or K2 as quite passable. These examples are extrem, of course. But when we were mapping for the bicycle map of Lübeck, we discussed how to tag the quality of way. It's not possible, because you don't know which exact vehicle will pass and what kind of driver or walker comes along. You can create a map for a certain group of road users and interpret the tags of the ways according to your target group. But you cannot tag it in OSM because OSM has no special target group. OSM is for every class of vehicle, driver or walker. Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
So, let me know if you disagree with this summary. Highway here excludes highway=track and highway=path. A highway is bad (significantly worse for most people than its best possible state) when it contains any of the following tags: - tracktype=grade2/grade3/grade4/grade5 - smoothness=bad/very_bad/horrible/very_horrible/impassable - surface=ground/dirt/earth/sand/grass A highway is also potentially bad (perhaps under bad weather) if it contains surface=unpaved/gravel/fine_gravel/pebblestone/compacted. * A highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway is also potentially bad if it contains any of these other tags: - mtb:scale=1/2/3/4/5/6 - sac_scale=T2/T3/T4/T5/T6 - wheelchair=no No other tag or value is currently relevant for the assessment of how bad a certain highway is. Note: even if you agree, it doesn't mean that an application (such as a renderer) has to support all of these conditions. For openstreetmap-carto, it may suffice to add support for all conditions up to the asterisk (*). On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: Hm there are a few types of vehicle ways (highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway) which present high usage by non-vehicles, so I think it would also make sense if the renderer also checked for these values: - mtb:scale=0 - sac_scale=T1 - wheelchair=yes/limited Which, of course, could be checked for any other kind of way, but especially for these kinds this check seems important. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: I mean, maybe the renderer can follow this logic: all untagged ways are paved (good) by default, and they're represented as bad if they include any of the following tags with different values than those shown: - tracktype=grade1 - smoothness=excellent/good/intermediate Thus, it would ignore the value of the surface tag. This would leave our current tagging system unchanged. On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote: This is why I said that a full description that is useful to everyone would require many more tags than we currently have (about 6 or 7 as far as I can imagine). Note that the way in this picture would be classified quite differently for each vehicle type (pedestrians, and maybe bikes to some extent can do just fine on it, but not wheelchair). I would tag this one as this: surface=asphalt tracktype=grade1 (grade2 says unpaved-only and says nothing about potholes) smoothness=very_bad mtb:scale=1 sac_scale=T1 (or maybe T2) wheelchair=limited But I think different people would disagree on whether we should render that as a 'good' or a 'bad' road. The potholes would likely be temporary in many countries, but not so much in others. So maybe the renderer should consider all tags except surface and draw the way as 'bad' if it is ever bad for someone (car, pedestrian, cyclist or wheelchair user). On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote: Now that is a bad road, even though it's paved. Before reading anything in this thread I would have applied the tags surface=asphalt, surface_condition=rough_less_than_40 kph (used 1232 times). Now, I'm not sure what I'd do ;-) On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, malenki o...@malenki.ch wrote: Fernando Trebien wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:56:15 -0200: - people don't seem to agree on which tag to recommend overall to describe surface conditions: tracktype, or smoothness, or simply surface OSMers seem to agree that they need all of them. * Tracktype at least for more or less unimportant tracks, * Surface for the material of surface of the road * Smoothness at least for ways whose smoothness doesn't match the smoothness one would expect when looking at the surface=value How else would you describe an asphalted road like this?: http://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lidar1.jpg (from http://geoawesomeness.com/application-of-mobile-lidar-on-pothole-detection/) ___ 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 -- 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) -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law) The speed of software
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
How about using smoothness:condition or ford:condition for that? On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote: Am Samstag, den 04.01.2014, 11:19 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO: We don't have to stick to the term trafficability. What would be a good alternative? - usability - passable - passability (there is an abandoned proposal suggesting this term) - usable_if - ??? None of them. I think it's a bad idea to tag interpretations. You look at a road and see whether it's passable or not. But what do you see in reality? You cannot see any kind of usability, this is only an interpretation of you. You see obstacles? What obstacles? Water, sand, grave, rocks? What does this mean to all road users? You may have a well built motorway in a very good state. But for you it's impassable. Why? Well, you are taxiing an A380. Or you are going by bike or on foot. You want to cross a river? No bridge? No problem, you are driving a hovercraft. Or there is a bridge, but it is impassable because you are driving a tank and the bridge would collapse. Even if two people are going by the same class of vehicle, the way may be passable only to one of them. I know a mountain-biker who has fun if the way is a blind end in front of a river with a depth of less than 1 m, followed by 200 m of mud and 500 m of scrub before reaching the next way. Some people would describe the way up to Mount Everest or K2 as quite passable. These examples are extrem, of course. But when we were mapping for the bicycle map of Lübeck, we discussed how to tag the quality of way. It's not possible, because you don't know which exact vehicle will pass and what kind of driver or walker comes along. You can create a map for a certain group of road users and interpret the tags of the ways according to your target group. But you cannot tag it in OSM because OSM has no special target group. OSM is for every class of vehicle, driver or walker. Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ 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] parking conditions
Am Freitag, den 03.01.2014, 20:18 -0500 schrieb Richard Welty: On 1/3/14 8:10 PM, One Hwang wrote: Suppose I wanted to tag to show that parking is prohibited on north side of Street X. Should I use parking:lane:right or parking:lane:left? that depends on what the direction of the way representing Street X is within OSM. which means that you can't make that decision until you're in the editor. you should use something like Field Papers to collect the data; that will make it easier to deal with the data entry. Suppose the Street X runs in an S-curve, which side should be defined as north, east etc. Using the direction of the way is unambiguous. If the direction is changed, the editors will offer an automatic change of all right/left, forward/backward and up/down - tags. Cheers, Wolfgang ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is in use and what it connects (I cannot determine this from pictures alone) with surface=dirt or surface=ground. One other point I want to make. I read this sentence several times in the above discussion and want to comment on it. Whether a highway is tagged as unclassified has nothing to do with its surface or its usability but depends on whether it has received a certain kind of recognition of importance by the people who administer the roads in your area. Does it have a route number or other designated reference number? If so it is a classified highway and has the further characteristic of tertiary, primary, or what have you. Here in Thailand there are many roads that are paved, smooth, but have no designated route numbers. We tag those roads as unclassified. So let's not confuse the issue of usability with classified or unclassified. From the Wiki Project Thailand: OK, let me clarify what I wrote. The agreed practice in Brazil was reached after intense discussion of the mappers in the Talk-BR mailing list. The motivation was that the current scheme of OSM highway classification, based on UK highways, was nearly impossible to apply consistently here in Brazil and the situation was getting a bit chaotic. So we agreed on a two-step classification process, first taking into account the format of the road, and afterwards and if necessary its perceived importance. In this scheme we tend to classify unpaved roads either as tertiary or as unclassified, but rarely as secondary or primary. Of course, all subject to discussion when necessary (which is the second step of classification). I am happy to say that this scheme now works quite well as usually the state of the road matches its regional importance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
Still on this parenthesis, our authorities simply administer, they do not publish any official recognition of importance (other than I administer this road). Using this as criterion, classification becomes highly subjective guesswork in Brazil and doesn't work well as Gerald pointed out. It is how our authorities' priorities are set (which roads are paved first, which get proper shoulder and road signs) that tells us something meaningful about their sense of importance. We all agreed that there are federal highways in Brazil which are much less important than certain state highways, sometimes lying just next to a federal highway. The same could be said about some state ways and certain local/intercity ways that are administrated by prefectures. So route numbers don't mean much per se here. We also somewhat agreed that traffic intensity says something about importance, and that traffic intensity correlates with road structure. This has somewhat been discussed (in English) at the German forum, here: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=21413 Of course, all this applies only to Brazil, one should always learn about and stick to local practice when mapping abroad. On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com wrote: Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is in use and what it connects (I cannot determine this from pictures alone) with surface=dirt or surface=ground. One other point I want to make. I read this sentence several times in the above discussion and want to comment on it. Whether a highway is tagged as unclassified has nothing to do with its surface or its usability but depends on whether it has received a certain kind of recognition of importance by the people who administer the roads in your area. Does it have a route number or other designated reference number? If so it is a classified highway and has the further characteristic of tertiary, primary, or what have you. Here in Thailand there are many roads that are paved, smooth, but have no designated route numbers. We tag those roads as unclassified. So let's not confuse the issue of usability with classified or unclassified. From the Wiki Project Thailand: OK, let me clarify what I wrote. The agreed practice in Brazil was reached after intense discussion of the mappers in the Talk-BR mailing list. The motivation was that the current scheme of OSM highway classification, based on UK highways, was nearly impossible to apply consistently here in Brazil and the situation was getting a bit chaotic. So we agreed on a two-step classification process, first taking into account the format of the road, and afterwards and if necessary its perceived importance. In this scheme we tend to classify unpaved roads either as tertiary or as unclassified, but rarely as secondary or primary. Of course, all subject to discussion when necessary (which is the second step of classification). I am happy to say that this scheme now works quite well as usually the state of the road matches its regional importance. ___ 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] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
Fernando Trebien wrote on Sat, 4 Jan 2014 10:00:34 -0200: So, let me know if you disagree with this summary. Highway here excludes highway=track and highway=path. A highway is bad (significantly worse for most people than its best possible state) when it contains any of the following tags: - tracktype=grade2/grade3/grade4/grade5 - smoothness=bad/very_bad/horrible/very_horrible/impassable - surface=ground/dirt/earth/sand/grass I personally would exclude grade2 as definition for really bad highway For the rest I agree. A highway is also potentially bad (perhaps under bad weather) if it contains surface=unpaved/gravel/fine_gravel/pebblestone/compacted. * Agree A highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway is also potentially bad if it contains any of these other tags: - mtb:scale=1/2/3/4/5/6 - sac_scale=T2/T3/T4/T5/T6 I personally doubt that mtb:scale and sac_scale should be used on living streets and such. - wheelchair=no Agree ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - trafficability
I understand the point you are making. A key flooded is already in use: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=flooded May be we can continue with something based on that one. Cheers, BGNO 2014/1/4 Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de: Please tag what is to be seen on the ground. If the surface consists of mud, tag surface=mud (or any appropriate tag). If it's flooded at hight tide or monsoon season, tag flooded=high_tide, flooded=monsoon_season or something better, but don't tag hight_tide=impassable because I might be driving an amphibious vehicle and want to be routed through. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:17 AM, malenki o...@malenki.ch wrote: I personally would exclude grade2 as definition for really bad highway For the rest I agree. Would you agree that it's potentially bad? -- 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] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
If you want a full justification of why a particular way was classified as it is, then I think you need a reasonably full description of a surface that would be useful for various kinds of routing. Considering what we've debated so far and also the characteristics that are used in many road quality assessment systems out there, this would involve collecting at least the following information, each on its own tag: - average frequency of bumps - average depth of bumps - average frequency of cracks - average width of cracks - soil grain size - soil humidity - soil compaction Sounds to me like a task for a smartphone app, combining GPS tracklogs with accelerometer and compass info you could get a fairly automated system for evaluating the smoothness of a road. Perhaps an Osmand plugin which could generate gpx wayponts relating to the smoothness of the road? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
I've thought about that once. An accelerometer may estimate the frequency of bumps, but their depth would require informing the app about some very specific technical of information (such as car weight and some coefficient to express how its dampener has been tuned - that or the car's resonance curve: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper) in order to estimate bump depth. Cracks can only be assessed confidently using a camera and computer vision algorithms. Measuring soil humidity is almost impossible (at best with very interlligent computer vision), soil compaction would require special resistance measurement equipment. I have no idea how to estimate grain size with automated methods, but maybe computer vision with some really good (and expensive camera) could do it. But all of these characteristics can be well guessed by humans when given examples to compare with. I also wonder if doing this wouldn't be similar to the measurement of traffic patterns (mostly measured average speed), which has been proposed for OSM a few times and rejected (because they change too often, are hard to measure and require breaking line segments into many pieces to achieve good resolution in the representation of the average speed). On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com wrote: If you want a full justification of why a particular way was classified as it is, then I think you need a reasonably full description of a surface that would be useful for various kinds of routing. Considering what we've debated so far and also the characteristics that are used in many road quality assessment systems out there, this would involve collecting at least the following information, each on its own tag: - average frequency of bumps - average depth of bumps - average frequency of cracks - average width of cracks - soil grain size - soil humidity - soil compaction Sounds to me like a task for a smartphone app, combining GPS tracklogs with accelerometer and compass info you could get a fairly automated system for evaluating the smoothness of a road. Perhaps an Osmand plugin which could generate gpx wayponts relating to the smoothness of the road? ___ 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] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
2014/1/3 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com We have a tag for this, it's smoothness: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness I am for a combination of surface and surface tags. +1 A problem I see with smoothness is not what it tries to describe, but the actual values used to do so. The supposed meaning of smoothness=bad really depends on what you expect to be good and bad , and this depends on your own means of transport (e.g. if you ride a racing bike, you won't be very interested in the fine differentiations on all the less smooth roads you generally can't ride on, and for a SUV the fine details of different asphalts important for a skater won't matter or even be recognizable when driving on them). In the current scale, unlike what you might expect, bad is more on the good than on the bad side as it is better than very_bad, horrible, very_horrible, impassable. The descriptions on the smoothness page, i.e. thin_rollers, thin_wheels, wheels, robust_wheels, high_clearance, off_road_wheels, specialized_off_road_wheels, No wheeled vehicle are easier to understand and more suitable to get consistent tagging than values like bad, very_bad, horrible, very_horrible. In general you should have (when tagging = in the editor (presets)) the whole scale from good to bad in front of you in order to judge well which value to assign. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: The descriptions on the smoothness page, i.e. thin_rollers, thin_wheels, wheels, robust_wheels, high_clearance, off_road_wheels, specialized_off_road_wheels, No wheeled vehicle are easier to understand and more suitable to get consistent tagging than values like bad, very_bad, horrible, very_horrible. +1 Perhaps we should consider changing the current values with those descriptions, they're even formatted as tag values already. -- 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] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
2014/1/4 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2014/1/3 Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com I am for a combination of surface and surface tags. +1 Hehe The descriptions on the smoothness page, i.e. thin_rollers, thin_wheels, wheels, robust_wheels, high_clearance, off_road_wheels, specialized_off_road_wheels, No wheeled vehicle are easier to understand and more suitable to get consistent tagging than values like bad, very_bad, horrible, very_horrible. In general you should have (when tagging = in the editor (presets)) the whole scale from good to bad in front of you in order to judge well which value to assign. I agree those values should be changed. I like the wheel approach. Maybe we could even have several sets of values. One of those sets could be the depth of the average hole in millimeters. Other sets could be characteristic for the surface or of the preferred mode of transport. Maybe other cultures have other ways of evaluating smoothness. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
One example of a set of values for footpaths: stiletto_heels, flipflops, sneakers, hiking_boots, mountaineering_boots. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful for rendering of roads in poor conditions
I really like the combination of keeping surface and using smoothness to cover quality. All types of roads and all users could be served by changing the values to the wheel descriptions. This would be a closed set that is fairly robust, if we also added something to represent weather variability. Dom Janko Mihelić jan...@gmail.com wrote: One example of a set of values for footpaths: stiletto_heels, flipflops, sneakers, hiking_boots, mountaineering_boots. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions
OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ? If people think its a good idea I could post a more evolved summary onto my OSM wiki page where we could all have a hack at it, might be more manageable than the mailing list ? If nothing else, we need to break this very complicated problem into manageable hunks. Think of this somewhat like a flow chart, I just have not drawn it up... Do we all agree that its important that significant maps, such as the one on the OSM website, shows some indication if the road may be in a state where some drivers are uncomfortable (right through to dangerous) ? If Yes, proceed, if No, please explain why not. You may like to address this - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-07/25yo-man-dies-of-thirst-in-outback-queensland/4357380 There are lots more. Tourists from outside Australia are at particular risk. OK, assuming we agree we want 'something' ... We need some tag (or tags) associated with a way that tells a rendering engine this way is one that might need caution. We can try and use existing tags or invent a new one. The new one option (such as BGNO's trafficability) could be tuned, based on experience, to do exactly what we want. On the other hand there are currently no ways in the database using that new tag. There are 3 million surface= and 2.5 million tracktype= tags in there. Mappers put used those tags in there for a reason. If you want a new tag defined, please say so, maybe with a new subject ? Continuing on, assuming we support using existing tags, which ones ? At lease three 'approved' candidates, four if you include 4wd_only. Surface= has about 3 million ways that are what we, in Oz, call 'unsealed', dirt, sand, gravel, unpaved and so on. This is not a bad fit but neither is it perfect. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface To provide additional information about the physical surface of roads/footpaths However, my experience is that a precise statement about the surface does not necessarily relate to its trafficability (thanks for the term BGNO!). I have driven sandy roads that were so easy and somewhere else, spent a day with a shovel digging through sand. Similarly, hard packed clay can sometimes be preferable to a made gravel road that has developed severe corrugations. And a sealed, tarmac road that is breaking up is a nightmare. Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. Tracktype is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype Thats a lot closer to what someone (or a router) might be wanting to know. It can and should be applied to all sorts of highway= ways, not just =track and that seems to be a major problem. In some people's view (Malenki..), it should be used only when highway=track. I and several other people (and the wiki) disagree. The values of Tracktype are not intuitive. The values are linearly expandable, to cover more extreme road conditions, grade6 is already widely used but not approved. Smoothness= has about 25 thousand ways. Thats drawing the line at very_bad. But there are another 40 thousand 'bads' so its hard to call. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness I am personally convinced this tag would be used heaps more if the values did not seem to make some moral judgment ! As I said before, I could never label the pretty road I live on as horrible. There is some support for making a new set of values and that would be cool (Fernando, Martin). But has the horse already bolted ? Surface= and tracktype each have more than 100 times more use. Further, if we come up with new values, why not a new name ? Truth is, 'smoothness' is only a small aspect of trafficability (there, I used it again!). 4wd_only=yes. Used 3 thousand times, more in Australia than elsewhere. In hindsight, maybe it could have done with at least three values, 'recommended', 'yes', 'extreme'. It does cut in somewhat beyond the spot we are talking about, I get the impression that people want a road labeled differently long before we get to 4wd_only=recommended. Any one of the above, or a combination ? Personally, I think a combination would be over complicating it. Just my view. Other Issues - How to render it ? That can come later on I guess. Wolfgang, Peter, Janko, Gerald warns about subjective tags. Truth is, almost everything we record is subjective to some degree. I'd take the legal approach where they talk about a reason person's view. For a normal road, thats someone driving a conventional car. For a mountain bike track, its someone riding a mountain bike Fernando pointed out that to make a truly objective assessment, we'd need many more tags and some elaborate technology to measure. Gerald suggested a smartphone app to do the
Re: [Tagging] Tags useful _SUMMARY_ for rendering of roads in poor conditions
Well said. I'm for that approach. These threads are nearly impossible to keep in your head as new comments and views emerge. I'm not sure consensus will be easy to arrive at in either case but it's worth a try. Create a new unified proposal page and go from there. I agree that the smoothness values should be changed from the bad and horrible type of very subjective words to something else. Also, a range of 4x4 keys/values are a good idea too IMO. AlaskaDave On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:07 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.netwrote: OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ? If people think its a good idea I could post a more evolved summary onto my OSM wiki page where we could all have a hack at it, might be more manageable than the mailing list ? If nothing else, we need to break this very complicated problem into manageable hunks. Think of this somewhat like a flow chart, I just have not drawn it up... Do we all agree that its important that significant maps, such as the one on the OSM website, shows some indication if the road may be in a state where some drivers are uncomfortable (right through to dangerous) ? If Yes, proceed, if No, please explain why not. You may like to address this - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-07/25yo-man-dies-of-thirst-in-outback-queensland/4357380 There are lots more. Tourists from outside Australia are at particular risk. OK, assuming we agree we want 'something' ... We need some tag (or tags) associated with a way that tells a rendering engine this way is one that might need caution. We can try and use existing tags or invent a new one. The new one option (such as BGNO's trafficability) could be tuned, based on experience, to do exactly what we want. On the other hand there are currently no ways in the database using that new tag. There are 3 million surface= and 2.5 million tracktype= tags in there. Mappers put used those tags in there for a reason. If you want a new tag defined, please say so, maybe with a new subject ? Continuing on, assuming we support using existing tags, which ones ? At lease three 'approved' candidates, four if you include 4wd_only. Surface= has about 3 million ways that are what we, in Oz, call 'unsealed', dirt, sand, gravel, unpaved and so on. This is not a bad fit but neither is it perfect. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface To provide additional information about the physical surface of roads/footpaths However, my experience is that a precise statement about the surface does not necessarily relate to its trafficability (thanks for the term BGNO!). I have driven sandy roads that were so easy and somewhere else, spent a day with a shovel digging through sand. Similarly, hard packed clay can sometimes be preferable to a made gravel road that has developed severe corrugations. And a sealed, tarmac road that is breaking up is a nightmare. Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. Tracktype is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype Thats a lot closer to what someone (or a router) might be wanting to know. It can and should be applied to all sorts of highway= ways, not just =track and that seems to be a major problem. In some people's view (Malenki..), it should be used only when highway=track. I and several other people (and the wiki) disagree. The values of Tracktype are not intuitive. The values are linearly expandable, to cover more extreme road conditions, grade6 is already widely used but not approved. Smoothness= has about 25 thousand ways. Thats drawing the line at very_bad. But there are another 40 thousand 'bads' so its hard to call. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness I am personally convinced this tag would be used heaps more if the values did not seem to make some moral judgment ! As I said before, I could never label the pretty road I live on as horrible. There is some support for making a new set of values and that would be cool (Fernando, Martin). But has the horse already bolted ? Surface= and tracktype each have more than 100 times more use. Further, if we come up with new values, why not a new name ? Truth is, 'smoothness' is only a small aspect of trafficability (there, I used it again!). 4wd_only=yes. Used 3 thousand times, more in Australia than elsewhere. In hindsight, maybe it could have done with at least three values, 'recommended', 'yes', 'extreme'. It does cut in somewhat beyond the spot we are talking about, I get the impression that people want a road labeled differently long before we get to 4wd_only=recommended. Any one of the above, or a combination ? Personally, I think a combination would be over
