Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Wed, 2008-06-11 at 23:24 +0200, Rainer Dorsch wrote: > Am Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > > Frank Sautter wrote: > > > i agree with you! > > > my idea of how this should be rendered is: > > > grade1: just like highway=service > > > [...] > > > > It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - a > > lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very "OSM-like", > > and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. We don't > > necessarily have anything better, of course. > > > > I agree. In particular it does not reflect the diameter of the stones on the > track. Having a track with large "rocks" (as it happens often in the Alps) or > very small stones certainly makes a difference when you ride with your > bikeNevertheless the tracktype information is much more useful than just > knowing it is a track. > I guess we could have a surface=big_stones or something like that :) -- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Marc Schütz wrote: >> An alternative is to use highway=service, surface=paved since they >> are access roads within a property(?) just the same as universities, >> hospitals and industry. > > No, they are usually public ways, not within a property. I don't think that's necessarily true, and has no bearing on whether it's marked as service. A service road is a service road, regardless of whether it's public or private. From the wiki, Key:highway page: "It is a very general and sometimes vague description of the physical structure of the highway." -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Friday 13 June 2008 03:54:42 Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > > If there is some legal reason for it to be only accessible by bikes and > > tractors, then you'll need to use access restrictions > > (access=no;agriculture=yes;bicycle=yes;foot=yes) anyway, as there is > > nothing that says normal cars are not allowed to use tracks of grade1 > > I don't know if this is a German specialty but the tracks being > discussed mainly carry the following sign disallowing all motorized > traffic: > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zeichen_260.svg > > And then the following exemption explicitly allowing > agricultural/forestry use: > > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zusatzzeichen_1026-38.svg > > Surely it is possible to tag these ways as > access=no,agriculture=yes,forestry=yes,bicycle=yes,horse=yes,foot=yes > etc.etc. but it seems wrong to me; the signage *forbids* certain > accesses and allows all others. You are suggesting to turn around the > logic with your tagging: Forbid all accesss and then explicitly allow > some. Which obviously breaks if new access types are introduced later. I'm doing exactly what you want to do. Except I was thinking about the following sign: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zeichen_250.svg The closest tag I know for this is access=no, unless you want to invent the new tag vehicles=no > What's more, in terms of kilometres we have vastly more of these in > Germany than, say, pedestrian zones in cities. Nobody says that we > should do away with highway=pedestrian even though you could perfectly > well tag it as highway=residential,access=no,foot=yes - pedestrian areas > are something that is known to everyone and so we just tag "here is a > pedestrian area" instead of trying to describe what exactly a pedestrian > area is. > > So it is only understandable that the community is looking for an easy > way to tag these kinds of tracks, and until now many seem to have used > highway=track,tracktype=grade1 for them. Maybe many have discussed this implicit access restriction on the German mailinglist. But I have seen nothing about it in the wiki nor in the talk list. So from my (Dutch) viewpoint there are no implicit access restrictions on a grade1 track. In contrary the very definition of it implies it is physically possible to drive a normal car along it. For a pedestrian highway however the implicit access restrictions are clearly defined and worldwide the same. > Maybe we should simply stop trying to find international lingo for > something that seems to be a national type of road, and just recommend > that people tag these things as "highway=land-und-forstwirtschaft", with > implied access restrictions. That is probably a better idea than to expect any routing program to know that when a track of grade1 is in Germany it has different access restrictions then in e.g. the Netherlands. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
> At 09:50 AM 6/13/2008, Sven Geggus wrote: > >spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I use highway=track for paved roads sometime. In Switzerland these > > > agricultural roads are sometimes of very high quality. > > > >Same in Germany > > An alternative is to use highway=service, surface=paved since they > are access roads within a property(?) just the same as universities, > hospitals and industry. No, they are usually public ways, not within a property. > > Mike Regards, Marc -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
At 09:50 AM 6/13/2008, Sven Geggus wrote: >spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I use highway=track for paved roads sometime. In Switzerland these > > agricultural roads are sometimes of very high quality. > >Same in Germany An alternative is to use highway=service, surface=paved since they are access roads within a property(?) just the same as universities, hospitals and industry. I understand the need and reasoning, but as a native speaker, I usually expect a track to be, well, a track, i.e. something of not particularly great quality. Mike ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Am Freitag, 13. Juni 2008 07:42:25 schrieb Karl Newman: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18 PM, spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:34:06AM -0700, Karl Newman wrote: > > > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I > > > should call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. > > > Since > > > > that's > > > > > "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. > > > Okay, that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when > > > changing Map Features since that's what the mappers rely on. > > > > highway=track > > tracktype=grade16520 > > > > Seems to be used 6520 times in Germany alone, according to tagwatch. That > > hardly qualifies as a single loonie, doing nonsense. I agree that > > changing map_features should be done carefully. But in this case it seems > > absurd to bnot change it. > > > > spaetz > > Ah, so I only need 6249 more loonies! :-) Thanks for the data to back this > up. I'm actually okay with the change, but I'm concerned with the cavalier > manner in which it was done. > > Karl Well, the point is, that when tracktype appeared (and was discussed and voted upon in the wiki), it included the "grade1 is paved or similar" description on the proposal page, but noone changed the outdated information in map features afterwards. -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
I´d like to point up proposal of new smoothness tag, which seems to solve the problems with tracktype and surface tags. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Smoothness It would be IMHO great solution for the track rendering problem, rendering could be also altered for special maps like cycle map or skate map, because the proposal clearly defines usability of the track. The same schema could be also used for rendering footways, cycleways and paths, with diferrent color. Proposal of track surface rendering: excelent - single solid line, thick goog - single solid line, thin intermediate - dashed line with longer dashes bad - dashed line with shorter dashes horrible - dotted line impassable - dotted line with greater spaces between dots This rendering schema could be also used for tracktype values till the smoothness tag will be in broader usage. Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Karl Newman schrieb: Ah, so I only need 6249 more loonies! :-) Thanks for the data to back this up. I'm actually okay with the change, but I'm concerned with the cavalier manner in which it was done. The original Map_Features was put up in the same way. I don't see any problem here. It's a wiki. You can revert it. And should there be much dissent, *then* you can have a vote. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I use highway=track for paved roads sometime. In Switzerland these > agricultural roads are sometimes of very high quality. Same in Germany Sven -- "We don't know the OS that God uses, but the Vatican uses Linux" (Sister Judith Zoebelein, Vatican Webmaster) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Sven Geggus schreef: > Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Umm... According to Map_Features, tracks are ALWAYS unpaved >> > > If this would be the case, what should be use for an agricultural serviceway > (probably bad word by word translation of the german term > "Landwirtschaftlicher Weg")? > > We have a whole lot of them here in germany and they are usually > paved or asphaltic ways, and they are different from unclassified, because > they are usually narrow and have access for tractors and bykes only. > > They are simular to a highway=service, which I tended to use before somebody > told me that tracktype=grade1 is track with paved surface. > I would mark them as highway=minor if only one car can pass on it at a time. Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Cartinus schreef: > On Thursday 12 June 2008 16:44:04 Sven Geggus wrote: > >> We have a whole lot of them here in germany and they are usually >> paved or asphaltic ways, and they are different from unclassified, because >> they are usually narrow and have access for tractors and bykes only. >> > > If it is wide enough to be accessible by a tractor, then it is wide enough to > be accessible by a single car, which is the minimum width for it to be a > highway=unclassified. > > If there is some legal reason for it to be only accessible by bikes and > tractors, then you'll need to use access restrictions > (access=no;agriculture=yes;bicycle=yes;foot=yes) anyway, as there is nothing > that says normal cars are not allowed to use tracks of grade1 > I use highway = unclassified for roads where two cars can easily pass each other. If only one car can pass at the same time, but it has asphalt or concrete, I use highway=minor. Polyglot ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
spaetz schreef: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 05:11:18PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: > >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map >> features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it >> looks like it was approved like that, so please don't "fix" approved >> descriptions before having a discussion and a vote first... >> > > I use highway=track for paved roads sometime. In Switzerland these > agricultural roads are sometimes of very high quality. So shouldn't he adapt > the description to something that is actually used? > When I find a high quality road that only allows one car to pass at a time, with an asfalt or concrete surface, I tag it as highway=minor. I tend to use highway=track for unpaved roads. Even when the surface is cobblestone I wouldn't use highway=track. Kind regards, Jo ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:18 PM, spaetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:34:06AM -0700, Karl Newman wrote: > > > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should > > call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since > that's > > "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, > > that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map > > Features since that's what the mappers rely on. > > highway=track > tracktype=grade16520 > > Seems to be used 6520 times in Germany alone, according to tagwatch. That > hardly qualifies as a single loonie, doing nonsense. I agree that changing > map_features should be done carefully. But in this case it seems absurd to > bnot change it. > > spaetz > Ah, so I only need 6249 more loonies! :-) Thanks for the data to back this up. I'm actually okay with the change, but I'm concerned with the cavalier manner in which it was done. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:34:06AM -0700, Karl Newman wrote: > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should > call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since that's > "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, > that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map > Features since that's what the mappers rely on. highway=track tracktype=grade16520 Seems to be used 6520 times in Germany alone, according to tagwatch. That hardly qualifies as a single loonie, doing nonsense. I agree that changing map_features should be done carefully. But in this case it seems absurd to bnot change it. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 05:11:18PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map > features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it > looks like it was approved like that, so please don't "fix" approved > descriptions before having a discussion and a vote first... I use highway=track for paved roads sometime. In Switzerland these agricultural roads are sometimes of very high quality. So shouldn't he adapt the description to something that is actually used? spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > If there is some legal reason for it to be only accessible by bikes and > tractors, then you'll need to use access restrictions > (access=no;agriculture=yes;bicycle=yes;foot=yes) anyway, as there is nothing > that says normal cars are not allowed to use tracks of grade1 I don't know if this is a German specialty but the tracks being discussed mainly carry the following sign disallowing all motorized traffic: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zeichen_260.svg And then the following exemption explicitly allowing agricultural/forestry use: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zusatzzeichen_1026-38.svg Surely it is possible to tag these ways as access=no,agriculture=yes,forestry=yes,bicycle=yes,horse=yes,foot=yes etc.etc. but it seems wrong to me; the signage *forbids* certain accesses and allows all others. You are suggesting to turn around the logic with your tagging: Forbid all accesss and then explicitly allow some. Which obviously breaks if new access types are introduced later. What's more, in terms of kilometres we have vastly more of these in Germany than, say, pedestrian zones in cities. Nobody says that we should do away with highway=pedestrian even though you could perfectly well tag it as highway=residential,access=no,foot=yes - pedestrian areas are something that is known to everyone and so we just tag "here is a pedestrian area" instead of trying to describe what exactly a pedestrian area is. So it is only understandable that the community is looking for an easy way to tag these kinds of tracks, and until now many seem to have used highway=track,tracktype=grade1 for them. Maybe we should simply stop trying to find international lingo for something that seems to be a national type of road, and just recommend that people tag these things as "highway=land-und-forstwirtschaft", with implied access restrictions. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thursday 12 June 2008 16:44:04 Sven Geggus wrote: > We have a whole lot of them here in germany and they are usually > paved or asphaltic ways, and they are different from unclassified, because > they are usually narrow and have access for tractors and bykes only. If it is wide enough to be accessible by a tractor, then it is wide enough to be accessible by a single car, which is the minimum width for it to be a highway=unclassified. If there is some legal reason for it to be only accessible by bikes and tractors, then you'll need to use access restrictions (access=no;agriculture=yes;bicycle=yes;foot=yes) anyway, as there is nothing that says normal cars are not allowed to use tracks of grade1 -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > What if I get a bunch of other nutters to help me? :-D What's the > threshold for "widespread use"? You could hold a vote on that ;-) Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Karl Newman schrieb: On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > of course "map features" defines a kind of lingua franca for all mappers. But any language is subject to change. It's not a bible. It also shouldn't play host to graffiti. Funny that you think you have to mention that. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > What's the threshold for "widespread use"? IMHO map features should one day be replaced by a page fed by regular tagwatch outputs, enriched by manual comments on the tags. Mappers then would see what other mappers use most. Just my two cents, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > It also shouldn't play host to graffiti. well, it's wiki so you can revert it. Some call it edit war, though :-) . Best regards, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Dirk-Lüder Kreie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Newman schrieb: > > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should >> call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since >> that's >> "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, >> that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map >> Features since that's what the mappers rely on. >> > > We are talking about widespread use, and not one nutter upsetting the whole > system. > What if I get a bunch of other nutters to help me? :-D What's the threshold for "widespread use"? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Christoph Eckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should > > call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since > that's > > "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, > > that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map > > Features since that's what the mappers rely on. > > of course "map features" defines a kind of lingua franca for all mappers. > But > any language is subject to change. It's not a bible. > > Best regards, > > ce > It also shouldn't play host to graffiti. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should > call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since that's > "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, > that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map > Features since that's what the mappers rely on. of course "map features" defines a kind of lingua franca for all mappers. But any language is subject to change. It's not a bible. Best regards, ce ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Karl Newman schrieb: So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since that's "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map Features since that's what the mappers rely on. We are talking about widespread use, and not one nutter upsetting the whole system. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map >> features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it looks >> like it was approved like that, so please don't "fix" approved descriptions >> before having a discussion and a vote first... >> > > Map Features is not a page that documents what has been voted upon; Map > Features is a page that documents what is used. > > If something enters Map Features through a vote, and is subsequently used > in a different way, it is perfectly ok to change Map Features to reflect > that, without initiating a voting process. > > Since the combination highway=track/tracktype=grade1 is widely used, and > tracktype=grade1 is described as "paved or heavily compacted hardcore", > there obviously *are* tracks with paved surface, so changing Map Features to > reflect that is perfectly ok; necessary, even. > > Bye > Frederik > So now I decide that since I drive really fast down my driveway, I should call it highway=motorway and start tagging driveways that way. Since that's "how it's used", I'm going to change Map Features to reflect that. Okay, that's a bit extreme, but really, care should be taken when changing Map Features since that's what the mappers rely on. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Ben Laenen schrieb: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it looks like it was approved like that, so please don't "fix" approved descriptions before having a discussion and a vote first... Most stuff on there has never been voted upon, and the vote is merely a suggestion of what people that do care think how things should be tagged. But ultimately in OSM it's the usage that decides the meaning. And the first version of Map_Features, of which much is still there, was not at all a result of some vote or formal agreement process. -- Dirk-Lüder "Deelkar" Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map > features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it > looks like it was approved like that, so please don't "fix" approved > descriptions before having a discussion and a vote first... Map Features is not a page that documents what has been voted upon; Map Features is a page that documents what is used. If something enters Map Features through a vote, and is subsequently used in a different way, it is perfectly ok to change Map Features to reflect that, without initiating a voting process. Since the combination highway=track/tracktype=grade1 is widely used, and tracktype=grade1 is described as "paved or heavily compacted hardcore", there obviously *are* tracks with paved surface, so changing Map Features to reflect that is perfectly ok; necessary, even. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Sven Geggus wrote: > We have a whole lot of them here in germany and they are usually > paved or asphaltic ways, and they are different from unclassified, because > they are usually narrow and have access for tractors and bykes only. > > They are simular to a highway=service, which I tended to use before somebody > told me that tracktype=grade1 is track with paved surface. I would expect them to be highway=service. Do you have a picture of one? -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway=track and the map features mentioned track is only for unpaved/unsealed roads. To me it looks like it was approved like that, so please don't "fix" approved descriptions before having a discussion and a vote first... Greetings Ben On Thursday 12 June 2008, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > > Umm... According to Map_Features, tracks are ALWAYS unpaved: > > "unpaved/unsealed roads for agricultural use; gravel roads in the > > forest etc." There, your problem's solved--just avoid all tracks. > > I have fixed Map_Features. > > Bye > Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Am Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2008 12:11:48 schrieb Frank Sautter: > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > >>> i agree with you! my idea of how this should be rendered is: > >>> grade1: just like highway=service [...] > >> > >> It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - > >> a lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very > >> "OSM-like", and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. > >> We don't necessarily have anything better, of course. > > > > There is the optional surface=gravel tag to indicate a gravel surface > > for a track. A related tag for paths, rather than tracks, is > > width=narrow. > > i don't think, that our tracktype scheme is arbitrary at least for > tracks here in germany. i think the 5 different grades match the > condition of a track very good. > > grade 1: more or less the same as a service road (the same construction) > but through farmland or forest. surface is asphalt or concrete. 2 > vehicles can pass each other by using the gaveled shoulder. > > grade 2: track has a surface made of gravel, shoulder is often overgrown > by grass. > > grade 3: track has a surface made of gravel, but the area between the > middle of the way is overgrown with grass. > > grade 4: tracks consist mainly out of two tire marks, sometimes there > are muddy puddles. bumpy. > > grade 5: rarely used tracks. often completely overgrown, but it is > cleary distinguishable from the surrounding area. > > the only thing that sometimes is difficult, is to set the point when a > track reaches another grade (tracks are often getting worse, the more > distant they become from a major road) > > tracks are always drivable by 4-wheeled vehicles, as paths are not. > > frank This is exactly the same way I am mapping tracktypes - it works perfectly. (and for any vehicle, not just "the mapper's bike" with "the mapper's driving style" applied) -Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Umm... According to Map_Features, tracks are ALWAYS unpaved If this would be the case, what should be use for an agricultural serviceway (probably bad word by word translation of the german term "Landwirtschaftlicher Weg")? We have a whole lot of them here in germany and they are usually paved or asphaltic ways, and they are different from unclassified, because they are usually narrow and have access for tractors and bykes only. They are simular to a highway=service, which I tended to use before somebody told me that tracktype=grade1 is track with paved surface. Sven -- /* * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-) */(taken from /usr/src/linux/lib/vsprintf.c) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > Umm... According to Map_Features, tracks are ALWAYS unpaved: > "unpaved/unsealed roads for agricultural use; gravel roads in the > forest etc." There, your problem's solved--just avoid all tracks. I have fixed Map_Features. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Alex S. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > > Meh. It's on my list of things to do, but to be honest I don't see it > > as very important. There's lots of things that the cycle map doesn't > > render at all, and for one I see distinguishing onroad/offroad cycle > > routes as more important than the difference between tracktypes; ditto > > for distinguishing bicycle=yes/no on footpaths and so on. > > I ride a bicycle with 'slicks' (tires with no tread) and like to avoid > tracks which are not paved. Having a map with a nice visual indicator > of track type would be a boon. > Umm... According to Map_Features, tracks are ALWAYS unpaved: "unpaved/unsealed roads for agricultural use; gravel roads in the forest etc." There, your problem's solved--just avoid all tracks. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 04:43:36AM -0700, Alex S. wrote: > Andy Allan wrote: > > Meh. It's on my list of things to do, but to be honest I don't see it > > as very important. There's lots of things that the cycle map doesn't > > render at all, and for one I see distinguishing onroad/offroad cycle > > routes as more important than the difference between tracktypes; ditto > > for distinguishing bicycle=yes/no on footpaths and so on. > > I ride a bicycle with 'slicks' (tires with no tread) and like to avoid > tracks which are not paved. Having a map with a nice visual indicator > of track type would be a boon. No doubt that it's handy to know how approriate a way is. However, it is still not universally accepted that the subjective "tracktype" is the way to go. Your rendering could equally be done with a "surface=gravel, paved, cobblestone,..." tag, which is less ambigious. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Andy Allan wrote: > Meh. It's on my list of things to do, but to be honest I don't see it > as very important. There's lots of things that the cycle map doesn't > render at all, and for one I see distinguishing onroad/offroad cycle > routes as more important than the difference between tracktypes; ditto > for distinguishing bicycle=yes/no on footpaths and so on. I ride a bicycle with 'slicks' (tires with no tread) and like to avoid tracks which are not paved. Having a map with a nice visual indicator of track type would be a boon. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Nick Whitelegg wrote: >>> i agree with you! my idea of how this should be rendered is: >>> grade1: just like highway=service [...] > >> It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - >> a lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very >> "OSM-like", and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. >> We don't necessarily have anything better, of course. > > There is the optional surface=gravel tag to indicate a gravel surface > for a track. A related tag for paths, rather than tracks, is > width=narrow. i don't think, that our tracktype scheme is arbitrary at least for tracks here in germany. i think the 5 different grades match the condition of a track very good. grade 1: more or less the same as a service road (the same construction) but through farmland or forest. surface is asphalt or concrete. 2 vehicles can pass each other by using the gaveled shoulder. grade 2: track has a surface made of gravel, shoulder is often overgrown by grass. grade 3: track has a surface made of gravel, but the area between the middle of the way is overgrown with grass. grade 4: tracks consist mainly out of two tire marks, sometimes there are muddy puddles. bumpy. grade 5: rarely used tracks. often completely overgrown, but it is cleary distinguishable from the surrounding area. the only thing that sometimes is difficult, is to set the point when a track reaches another grade (tracks are often getting worse, the more distant they become from a major road) tracks are always drivable by 4-wheeled vehicles, as paths are not. frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
>> i agree with you! >> my idea of how this should be rendered is: >> grade1: just like highway=service >> [...] >It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - a >lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very "OSM-like", >and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. We don't >necessarily have anything better, of course. There is the optional surface=gravel tag to indicate a gravel surface for a track. A related tag for paths, rather than tracks, is width=narrow. See http://www.free-map.org.uk/freemap/index.php?lat=50.84&lon=-1.42&zoom=14 for some example rendering of tracks/paths of different widths. Everything on there is a permissive bridleway (route accessible to horses, but): the magenta dashed lines enclosed by grey dashed lines are tracks the magenta dashed lines without the grey lines are paths the narrower magenta dotted lines are narrower paths I have chosen not to show gravel tracks differently but it could easily be done. Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Am Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 schrieb Andy Allan: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Sven Geggus > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's because the Mapnik layer aims to be a nice looking map and not one > >> that "has it all". > > > > Despite of this it would IMO be still much mor appropriate to render > > tracktype=grade1 in the same form as highway=service. > > > > If we don't want to have mapnik render different tracks differently we > > should at least have them in the cyclemap! > > Meh. It's on my list of things to do, but to be honest I don't see it > as very important. There's lots of things that the cycle map doesn't > render at all, and for one I see distinguishing onroad/offroad cycle > routes as more important than the difference between tracktypes; ditto I am very happy to hear that this is on your list. I very rarely use cycle routes along roads, so I have a different opinion, but I am probably in a minority here. And at the end you do the work, so you decide :-) Thanks for the nice cyclemap. Rainer > for distinguishing bicycle=yes/no on footpaths and so on. -- Rainer Dorsch Lärchenstr. 6 D-72135 Dettenhausen 07157-734133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Fingerprint: 5966 C54C 2B3C 42CC 1F4F 8F59 E3A8 C538 7519 141E Full GPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Am Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 schrieb Richard Fairhurst: > Frank Sautter wrote: > > i agree with you! > > my idea of how this should be rendered is: > > grade1: just like highway=service > > [...] > > It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - a > lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very "OSM-like", > and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. We don't > necessarily have anything better, of course. > I agree. In particular it does not reflect the diameter of the stones on the track. Having a track with large "rocks" (as it happens often in the Alps) or very small stones certainly makes a difference when you ride with your bikeNevertheless the tracktype information is much more useful than just knowing it is a track. Thanks, Rainer -- Rainer Dorsch Lärchenstr. 6 D-72135 Dettenhausen 07157-734133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Fingerprint: 5966 C54C 2B3C 42CC 1F4F 8F59 E3A8 C538 7519 141E Full GPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Am Mittwoch, 11. Juni 2008 schrieb Frank Sautter: > my idea of how this should be rendered is: > grade1: just like highway=service > grade2: continous brown line (maybe less bold than tracks are currently > rendered) > grade3: dashed brown line (the current style for tracks, maybe less bold) > grade4: dash dotted brown line (appearing at higher zoom) > grade5: dotted line (appearing at higher zoom) For me that would be very helpful. I am not an artist though and can't judge if that would make the maps uglier or just more useful. Thanks, Rainer -- Rainer Dorsch Lärchenstr. 6 D-72135 Dettenhausen 07157-734133 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Fingerprint: 5966 C54C 2B3C 42CC 1F4F 8F59 E3A8 C538 7519 141E Full GPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Frank Sautter wrote: > i agree with you! > my idea of how this should be rendered is: > grade1: just like highway=service > [...] It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - a lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very "OSM-like", and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. We don't necessarily have anything better, of course. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Sven Geggus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It's because the Mapnik layer aims to be a nice looking map and not one >> that "has it all". > > Despite of this it would IMO be still much mor appropriate to render > tracktype=grade1 in the same form as highway=service. > > If we don't want to have mapnik render different tracks differently we > should at least have them in the cyclemap! Meh. It's on my list of things to do, but to be honest I don't see it as very important. There's lots of things that the cycle map doesn't render at all, and for one I see distinguishing onroad/offroad cycle routes as more important than the difference between tracktypes; ditto for distinguishing bicycle=yes/no on footpaths and so on. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Frederik Ramm wrote: >> I am wondering why mapnik is makeing no attempt to render the >> different tracktypes we have in our mapdata. > It's because the Mapnik layer aims to be a nice looking map and not > one that "has it all". well, i think obeying the tracktype would make the map nicer, as all those tractor trails (tracktype 4 or 5) would not appear so dominant on a map in a rural or forest area and one could more easily decide which track to use for a family bicycle tour or when mountainbiking. just take a look at this (my) area where half of those dashed brown lines are grade 4 or 5 and would not be that dominant on the map (just compare them to the highway=service). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.6327&lon=9.0058&zoom=13 Sven Geggus wrote: > Despite of this it would IMO be still much mor appropriate to render > tracktype=grade1 in the same form as highway=service. i agree with you! my idea of how this should be rendered is: grade1: just like highway=service grade2: continous brown line (maybe less bold than tracks are currently rendered) grade3: dashed brown line (the current style for tracks, maybe less bold) grade4: dash dotted brown line (appearing at higher zoom) grade5: dotted line (appearing at higher zoom) frank ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's because the Mapnik layer aims to be a nice looking map and not one > that "has it all". Despite of this it would IMO be still much mor appropriate to render tracktype=grade1 in the same form as highway=service. If we don't want to have mapnik render different tracks differently we should at least have them in the cyclemap! Sven -- If we want hardware to work to its full potential, we need to claim to be a recent version of Windows. (Matthew Garrett) /me is [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://sven.gegg.us/ on the Web ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of tracktype
Hi, > I am wondering why mapnik is makeing no attempt to render the different > tracktypes we have in our mapdata. It's because the Mapnik layer aims to be a nice looking map and not one that "has it all". > This was probably discussed before, Very true: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-May/026232.html Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
