[talk-au] dirt roads
Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span. So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues. So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. Unmade roads These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. highway=track surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] source=survey Made but unsealed roads. Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] source=survey Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between. Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'. Discussion Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' it would not show up on a map until you zoom in way past where you can get any idea of where it starts and ends. At time of writing, its highway=primary (and, I might note, incomplete), that's possibly dangerously misleading. Conventional vehicles routinely use it but I'd probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. However, none of the mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it is no real protection for a visiting tourist. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite correct from a purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) drivers get quite nervous when they find themselves on a dirt road. If they have got there by following a OSM map showing a road with coloured fill, maybe they have a case ? Most printed maps here in Australia show unsealed roads without a coloured fill. And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
A couple of quick comments: There is a 4wd tag already in use - 4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no being a pointless value) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes There's about 1000 instances of this tag in use in Australia. There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle. Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is complete/useful. The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and NSW Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of camping and getting out into the bush Matt On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span. So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues. So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. Unmade roads These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. highway=track surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] source=survey Made but unsealed roads. Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] source=survey Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to dirt roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented as viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'. Discussion Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its purpose. A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between some (admittedly small) communities. As a
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: lanes=[1; 2] I thing the lanes tag is best not used, unless there's more than two marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road. This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes I have two reasons for arguing this. Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is reserved for the special cases. Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. I think a lot of roads get pumped up to be more important than they are. The great majority of country roads should be unclassified. It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply. Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many cars per hour travel it? Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway. By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest too!) I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road. I agree lanes=2 is almost certainly unnecessary. Think the wiki already says so. So, I suggest, your comment does raise the question of just how narrow a road needs to be before it gets called lanes=1 ? Most drivers on a dirt road with good visibility tend to sit close to the middle and drift off to the left when some one approaches. Thats one end of the scale. At the other, you are continuously (and nervously) looking for somewhere to pull in case there is oncoming traffic. (anyone been down Bull Track in the high country ?) I tend to think that somewhere in the middle (so to speak) is right, if you expect to need to slow down substantially to allow another car to pass, that is lanes=1. Sadly there is quite a lot of roads that fit that description. Agree with your other comments, especially about the Hume ! David - Original Message - From: John Henderson To: Cc: Sent:Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:11:07 +1100 Subject:Re: [talk-au] dirt roads On 21/10/12 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: lanes=[1; 2] I thing the lanes tag is best not used, unless there's more than two marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road. This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes I have two reasons for arguing this. Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is reserved for the special cases. Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download. Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads defined as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. I think a lot of roads get pumped up to be more important than they are. The great majority of country roads should be unclassified. It's hard to make a judgement as to when a different tag should apply. Is it a main connecting road between towns with a Post Office? How many cars per hour travel it? Another example is the tagging of the Hume Highway as a motorway. Most of it isn't. The Hume Freeway in Victoria is, but most of the NSW section has normal side-road junctions, and is certainly not a motorway. By tagging it as a motorway, we've destroyed this useful distinction. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones ! I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map data ends up being looked at. As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! David - Original Message - From: Matt White To: Cc: Sent:Sun, 21 Oct 2012 12:33:24 +1100 Subject:Re: [talk-au] dirt roads A couple of quick comments: There is a 4wd tag already in use - 4wd_only:yes|recommended (with no being a pointless value) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:4wd_only%3Dyes [1] There's about 1000 instances of this tag in use in Australia. There was a proposal kicking around ages ago that was trying to define some improved classification for unpaved roads (as unpaved roads come in all sorts of varieties). I think the discussion got pretty acrimonious and petty, but the thought was there. There are roads I've been on where the surface would be OK for a normal car, but the road is a series of sharp humps that would easily ground a standard clearance vehicle. Seasonal closure is another area where I don't think the tagging is complete/useful. The current tag is dry_weather_only=yes or access=dry_weather_only, which is valid for any road that is impassable in the wet due to surface condition or creek/river crossings, but there are also tracks with explicit closures (usually mid may to the first weekend in September or October) - generally marked as 'SSC' in the VicMap series of maps. Don't have a solution, but it something that might need working on as there are a lot of SSC roads in Victoria and NSW Anyway, I'm all for improved tagging of dirt roads - it's my favourite kind of mapping (usually cos it turns out to involve a couple of days of camping and getting out into the bush Matt On 21/10/2012 12:03 PM, dban...@internode.on.net [2] wrote: Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span. So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging [3] I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues. So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. Unmade roads These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. highway=track surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] source=survey Made but unsealed roads. Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] source=survey Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current rendering engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot of dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise a little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would understand that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines with white between Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines and a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a sealed road, so maybe mappers
[talk-au] Lanes tag
Hi John, It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds. Any thoughts? Cheers, Paul. -- Message: 3 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 13:11:07 +1100 From: John Henderson snow...@gmx.com To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 508359bb.6040...@gmx.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed On 21/10/12 12:03, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: lanes=[1; 2] I thing the lanes tag is best not used, unless there's more than two marked lanes on a two-way road, or more than one lane on a one-way road. This is the recommendation in the Australian tagging guidelines: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging#Number_of_lanes I have two reasons for arguing this. Firstly, it's something else that would need checking when doing OSM maintenance (and quite unnecessarily). And it's something else to get wrong if it's used routinely. It's easier for everybody if its used is reserved for the special cases. Secondly, as an active mapper, I often download the whole of Australia every week for use as route-proving on my Garmin GPSs. If every road in Australia had a lanes tag, that'd be a lot more data to download... John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Ah dirt roads how difficult you are! Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make it any less important than many others. David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some (I have travelled the whole length of it quite recently and we passed a few Falcons and Commodores), it is in fact a NT state highway, as is the Sandover Hwy and Tanami Rd (Routes 12, 14 and 5 respectively) and should therefore, going by wiki guidelines, be classified as highway=primary. Likewise the Birdsville, Strzelecki and Oodnadatta Tracks are all SA D roads and should all be highway=tertiary (Birdsville used to have a national classification). These just need to have their additional tags like surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc. I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map rendering and we're currently going over the issue of how to render dirt roads/tracks, what should classify as a dirt road or track and how to populate the outback with a few roads. Currently we see highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection purpose - these would be the real backwater tracks in the outback, or the majority of 4wd tracks on the east coast. highway=unclassified are any sealed or unsealed roads that can't be classified as residential - such as 2wd forest drives (if you know the area, the Watagan Forest Drive is an example). From there up it follows the wiki - and it doesn't matter if the road is 1 land or 8, 2wd or 4wd etc. A 4wd track on the east coast can be a highway in the centre. For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads tagged 4wd_only Cheers Nathan From: talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 1:11 PM Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 15 Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to talk-au@openstreetmap.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to talk-au-requ...@openstreetmap.org You can reach the person managing the list at talk-au-ow...@openstreetmap.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than Re: Contents of Talk-au digest... Today's Topics: 1. dirt roads (dban...@internode.on.net) 2. Re: dirt roads (Matt White) 3. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson) -- Message: 1 Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:33:21 +1030 From: dban...@internode.on.net To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org Subject: [talk-au] dirt roads Message-ID: 46217a218f3c33de582b3f9464710cf016d5a...@webmail.internode.on.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time ago, following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have done myself but over a several year time span. So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I should add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging? I don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more detailed. However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety issues. So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. Unmade roads These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been cut initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, importantly, are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often surprised at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. highway=track surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] source=survey Made but unsealed roads. Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' and regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than the sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will usually have run offs to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] surface=unpaved lanes=[1; 2] source=survey Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. While the selection of tags should not be defined by how
Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote: It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds. Any thoughts? I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional conditions should be flagged as appropriate. But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as are truck drivers. The width or est_width tags from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in most such circumstances. John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 13:28, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest too!) I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road. That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible. I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock face on the other. Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as access:caravan=unsuitable John ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones ! I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly, because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map data ends up being looked at. As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC). The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything. I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information - often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a 2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement. Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA. Matt ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21/10/12 13:35, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However, I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere ! Personally, I would find a tag 4x4_only=no source:4x4_only=survey Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every one is ! Thanks folks ! If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary in a few days. From: Nathan Van Der Meulen Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make it any less important than many others. Far from it, I live on a dirt road ! David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some ...pass a few Falcons and Commodores), Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had a broken rear axle. it is in fact a NT state highway Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag. These just need to have their additional tags like surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc. Exactly! But we need to see those tags used. I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map rendering Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ? highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection purpose Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4. For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads tagged 4wd_only Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface= but it does not show up on the maps most people see. Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and 4x4_only=recommended ? Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to be updated. David - Original Message - From: Ian Sergeant Personally, I would find a tag 4x4_only=no source:4x4_only=survey Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
On 21 October 2012 16:05, dban...@internode.on.net wrote: Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to be updated. Not at all. It is the correct default situation, of course, that a 4x4 is not required. However a good survey of roads that are remote should consider including additional detail on the road surface. Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no guarantee that a 4x4 is not required. 4x4_only=no is a useful observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations). I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the default, so the tag is useless. Or worse still, does a selection for all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
