[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too. I would like to move things forward and have this render properly, roads that are 4wd only are everywhere in Australia and they need to clearly state it. Simply marking things as tracks isn't enough as cars are able to drive along some tracks, but for clearence reasons they won't be able to drive down a 4wd_only track. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith wrote: While this isn't my proposal, I have an interest in getting 4wd_only tracks to render properly. I've slightly modified this page to conform to what people suggested on the talk-au list. This tag is already in use in the Australian area, judging by the talk pages possibly other countries too. I would like to move things forward and have this render properly, roads that are 4wd only are everywhere in Australia and they need to clearly state it. Simply marking things as tracks isn't enough as cars are able to drive along some tracks, but for clearence reasons they won't be able to drive down a 4wd_only track. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only Australian Tagging Guidelines, based on talk-au threads. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#4WD_only_track High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... http://www.exploroz.com/Uploads/Members/88187.875/Forum/Pic_1__TN800.jpg This sign makes no such distinction, it's not the only sign that just states 4WD Only although the only ones I've seen are in national parks around here. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions. I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does not suggest that to me, my van is a 4x4 but its soo low it would break doing proper off-roading. Jack On Aug 5, 2009 8:25 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? ... http://www.exploroz.com/Uploads/Members/88187.875/Forum/Pic_1__TN800.jpg This sign makes no such distinction, it's not the only sign that just states 4WD Only although the only ones I've seen are in national parks around here. ___ talk mailing list t...@openstreetmap.org... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jack Stringer jack.ix...@googlemail.com wrote: 4x4 are for the crap drivers, 2wd is the best. In the UK there are several reliabilty trials that use these so called 4x4 tracks for competitions. I think we need a tag that suggests the highway is either rough terrain or hard going and a decent off road vehicle is strongly advised. 4x4 only does not suggest that to me, my van is a 4x4 but its soo low it would break doing proper off-roading. People in Australia are used to signs that say 4wd only and it's meaning is clear, there is no tag combination at present that says it succinctly, the point of getting this officially recognised is so that rendered maps will show 4wd only after the name and those that have suitable vehicles can if they wish take those routes and those that don't won't. There is usually a few tourists every year that end up stuck somewhere and dead and marking 4wd tracks may reduce the stupidity of people taking short cuts when they really don't know what to expect. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? ...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Hi, Roy Wallace wrote: The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers? What about motorcycles? Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... good point, that the sign-makers might not have thought of. So they're advising Bugatti Veyron (4x4 transmission but no ground-clearance) drivers that these roads are especially designed for their use? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? This is going in the wrong direction IMHO. There is no limit to the number of vehicles that could be defined in this way. What about armored_tanks=yes ? :-) I think it's a mistake to use tags that depend on anything but the terrain. For example, terrain=*. That would tell people what they want to know from a map, namely what the terrain is like, not what kind of vehicle someone thinks can go there. My 2 cents. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers? Primarily they are advice which reflects the state the road is usually in. At the very least you look stupid to who ever comes along to pull you out :) I don't think insurance would be too much of a problem, getting a ticket by a cop disobeying a sign or similar might happen but I've never heard of anyone getting one. What about motorcycles? BMW road/off road bikes work well, road bikes don't work very well on anything but sealed roads, and then you have trail/ag/4 wheel bikes all would go on these roads no problem. The question is, what sort of motorcycle are you asking about? Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? I'm not sure which is better from a consistency point of view, however 4wd_only=yes/recommended/no is already in use. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Morten Kjeldgaard schrieb: On 05/08/2009, at 10.09, Frederik Ramm wrote: Maybe it makes sense to use a variation of the motorcar tag which is already widely used to model car access (e.g. highway=tertiary, motorcar=4wdonly - or even highway=tertiary, motorcar=no, motorcar:4wd=yes or something)? This is going in the wrong direction IMHO. There is no limit to the number of vehicles that could be defined in this way. What about armored_tanks=yes ? :-) I think it's a mistake to use tags that depend on anything but the terrain. For example, terrain=*. That would tell people what they want to know from a map, namely what the terrain is like, not what kind of vehicle someone thinks can go there. Resp. for a way there is surface=* But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the renderer should implement it, as it could just be used in this area, whereas surface=* can be applied to every way. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On 05/08/2009, at 5:54 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. While true, it would also be useful to know whether you can't drive an average sedan up the road, or if you need to bring your recovery equipment (after checking it still works). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Lester Caine wrote: High ground clearance required? More 4WD vehicles are appearing nowadays, but it's not always clear what they are actually capable off. So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... it's a legal distinction here and it could be any of those problems. and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still might not make a 4wd only track. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the renderer should implement it, as it could just be used in this area, whereas surface=* can be applied to every way. If it's signed as 4WD only, shouldn't that info be rendered to show people that it might not be the best road to travel along? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Roy Wallace wrote: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote: High ground clearance required? ...So 4WD_Only is not really the correct terminology and does not clearly identify the problem? IS it ground clearance, deep fords, mud or poor traction conditions ... The sign says 4WD ONLY - I therefore suggest that 4wd_only is indeed the correct terminology, at least in regions (e.g. Australia) where the sign appears as such and the phrase is in common use. WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by being what's on the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement, that would be different, but this is unambiguous. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: and mud, poor traction ground clearance and a ford still might not make a 4wd only track. Having grown up in such areas I'm well schooled in traveling along tracks that aren't 4wd only and ways to unstick yourself, usually jacking up the car and sticking whatever is near under wheels by to get yourself out. However there are just some places that I wouldn't go in anything less than a proper 4wd, for those in the UK think landrover, that's what they mean here by 4wd only. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Frederik Ramm wrote: What is the legal status of these signs? Are you liable to a fine if you proceed with a 2WD car, or is it just that the insurance won't pay if you do and get stuck? Or are they just meant as an advice to drivers? Ah, the legal status is very interesting. Currently if you have an AWD or an 4WD you can drive in the snow without having chains fitted. That is State Law NSW then in the NSW National Parks there are regulations (lesser laws) which say where you can and can't go, with a bike, with a horse, with a car, and if a 4WD is required. These people very aggressively police these rules, such that sticking to them is important eg this one http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NationalParks/parkCamping.aspx?id=N0004 Burralow Creek camping ground (35 sites) Getting there: From Kurrajong Heights, take the fire trail off Burralow Road (4WD only). From Bilpin, take the Patterson Range Fire Trail (also strictly 4WD only). Please drive carefully on the winding fire trails leading to the camping area. or Murphys Glen campground Unsealed road/trail - 2WD vehicles. 4WD required in wet weather. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Jonathan Bennett openstreet...@jonno.cix.co.uk wrote: WHS -- it meets the guidelines of being verifiable, by being what's on the ground. If it were based on one mapper's judgement, that would be different, but this is unambiguous. Australia isn't the only country that does 4WD Only signs... http://vgwww.vegagerdin.is/sthbthjon.nsf/2d1e761d5db9cd840025702a00731850/4f712550323daa0900257241003846d7?OpenDocument So the only thing that is left is describe the information in OSM's DB. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith schrieb: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the renderer should implement it, as it could just be used in this area, whereas surface=* can be applied to every way. If it's signed as 4WD only, shouldn't that info be rendered to show people that it might not be the best road to travel along? Yes it should, but as stated above 4WD to *me* it's not telling sth. about the quality of the road. To you of course it dose, becouse you know this term. 4WD has a special meaning in your area, while on the other hand, surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Hi, Peter Körner wrote: 4WD has a special meaning in your area I don't know what 4WD means in other places but if I saw a map with certain roads marked 4 WD only I would know exactly what that means, and I doubt that anyone wouldn't! Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, 5 Aug 2009, Peter Körner wrote: surface=* is unambiguous to anyone and in any place around the world. it doesn't tell me whether i drive my FWD car along there or if i should stay away and it doesn't matter how you define surface, it isn't going to explain what 4wd only means. it's a legally enforceable definition and does not mean AWD like the Subaru and here they are taxed differently on the initial purchase price too 4WDS (Australian Transport Safety Bureau) are vehicles not based on a car design, including long and short base four wheel drive passenger vehicles and utilities ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
But never the less I think if 4wd-only is common in that region, why not tag it? The more data, the better. But I'm unsure if the The BETTER data, the better. There, I fixed that for you :-) Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different situations. It's better to keep the data general. So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Since that tag could also be used for a hiking trail in the mountains, it is a more general approach that the rendering engines could more easily deal with. If 4wd_only is already widely implemented, so be it, but I think the point above is worth remembering. Cheers, Morten ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different situations. It's better to keep the data general. So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Since that tag could also be used for a hiking trail in the mountains, it is a more general approach that the rendering engines could more easily deal with. Signs specifically have 4WD Only on them, this isn't something we're mapping subjectively. This is something a government body has put upand their signs don't indicate anything else beyond that so this is no different then recording what is on a maxheight sign, we aren't measuring it we're recording information as we see it on signs. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata. -- Jonathan (Jonobennett) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just about any surface except mud, as long as it's relatively smooth and flat. I drive a 2WD car that is about as far from the ground as my cat, but about once a month, I travel along a 3km-long driveway that's a mixture of rocky soil, loose gravel/pebbles, and bedrock. There unsealed roads in the area with what most people would call a better surface that I've had difficulty with when dry and wouldn't dare try in the rain. -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
David Lynch schrieb: On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 09:45, Morten Kjeldgaardm...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Surface alone doesn't tell you enough. A standard car can handle just about any surface except mud, as long as it's relatively smooth and flat. I drive a 2WD car that is about as far from the ground as my cat, but about once a month, I travel along a 3km-long driveway that's a mixture of rocky soil, loose gravel/pebbles, and bedrock. There unsealed roads in the area with what most people would call a better surface that I've had difficulty with when dry and wouldn't dare try in the rain. Then IMO we need better values for surface, so that you're able to put this into this tag. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
Jonathan Bennett schrieb: Morten Kjeldgaard wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, Remember that rendering a map isn't the only use for geodata. And also remember that the Main-OSM-Mapnik renderer isn't the only one out there. If someone wants to render a map with this tag included, he's free to do so. That's why I'd put all information into OSM that's available. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
John Smith schrieb: --- On Wed, 5/8/09, Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.au.dk wrote: Remember that data is no good if it's not rendered, and the software can't be expected to deal with a gazillion different situations. It's better to keep the data general. So using the surface=* tag is a better approach IMHO to warn that a road is in a bad shape for ordinary traffic. Since that tag could also be used for a hiking trail in the mountains, it is a more general approach that the rendering engines could more easily deal with. Signs specifically have 4WD Only on them, this isn't something we're mapping subjectively. This is something a government body has put upand their signs don't indicate anything else beyond that so this is no different then recording what is on a maxheight sign, we aren't measuring it we're recording information as we see it on signs. Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into a tag/value pair but with the clarification that 4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not* necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road at any time, instead it's a given restriction, similar to maxspeed. Then this indeed should be supported by the rederers. Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - 4wd_only
--- On Wed, 5/8/09, Peter Körner osm-li...@mazdermind.de wrote: Okay, i got the point. I agree that this should be put into a tag/value pair but with the clarification that 4wd_only=yes (or whatever the tag will be) does *not* necessarily mean that all 4wd vehicles could pass this road at any time, instead it's a given restriction, similar to maxspeed. The only thing left to be agreed upon is what the tag should be named, however 4wd_only is in use already and it reflects what's on the sign. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
