Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging
On 03/07/13 08:52, Steve Bennett wrote: FYI, the map style I'm working on for cycle touring does make this distinction: http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt Nice work ! You might be right - but on a technical front, it's no more burdensome to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel, dirt] as a dashed line rather than just, say, unpaved. Steve Are you rendering that with Mapnik ? I planned to do something similar to show the "Guardians of the Slippery Map" how cool it was but found it non trivial and have not had time to get back to it. David ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Surprising stat. Especially considering paved is considered the default. Yeah - I try to specify it wherever possible though, outside cities. > I really like multi-level tags. > > natural=water > water=lake > > surface=unpaved > unpaved=gravel > > surface=paved > paved=asphalt > > It makes it easy for people two write simple parsers without enumerating the > options, but people who are want to parse the details to do so. > > There are a number of instances when OSM uses this type of multi-level > tagging scheme, but it lacks any form of consistency. Agreed on all counts. There are a lot of people who still think the best thing to do is make up new tags on the fly and to encourage others to do the same. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging
On 3 July 2013 08:52, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Also a quick stat for you. 165,000 highways in Australia have a > surface tag. 718,000 don't. > > Surprising stat. Especially considering paved is considered the default. > it's no more burdensome > to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel, dirt] as a dashed line > rather than just, say, unpaved. > I really like multi-level tags. natural=water water=lake surface=unpaved unpaved=gravel surface=paved paved=asphalt It makes it easy for people two write simple parsers without enumerating the options, but people who are want to parse the details to do so. There are a number of instances when OSM uses this type of multi-level tagging scheme, but it lacks any form of consistency. Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 8:42 PM, David Bannon wrote: > Just a thought here, we'd really like "the renderers" to show > unpaved/unsealed/whatever roads differently from sealed ones. In particular, > the mapnik rendered slippery map on the OSM website FYI, the map style I'm working on for cycle touring does make this distinction: http://emscycletours.site44.com/map2.html#egrt Also a quick stat for you. 165,000 highways in Australia have a surface tag. 718,000 don't. > They show little interest I must admit but will show even less if we point > to a whole range of surface= tags that need that treatment. So might be > better agreeing on one term rather than being very specific and saying > 'dirt', 'gravel' etc. As I have mentioned before, this is a road safety > issue as much as a presentation one. You might be right - but on a technical front, it's no more burdensome to show all of [unsealed, unpaved, gravel, dirt] as a dashed line rather than just, say, unpaved. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging
On 02/07/13 17:58, Steve Bennett wrote: If people want to be specific with surface=dirt, surface=gravel then that would be different. Just a thought here, we'd really like "the renderers" to show unpaved/unsealed/whatever roads differently from sealed ones. In particular, the mapnik rendered slippery map on the OSM website They show little interest I must admit but will show even less if we point to a whole range of surface= tags that need that treatment. So might be better agreeing on one term rather than being very specific and saying 'dirt', 'gravel' etc. As I have mentioned before, this is a road safety issue as much as a presentation one. I like the idea of 'unpaved', it gets heaps of use internationally and I should update the mapnik request accordingly... David So - yes, go ahead. :) Steve On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, I know we had some discussion over 4wd/dirt road tagging. This ended up in the wiki as a recommendation to use surface=unsealed http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unsealed I really can't see a significant reason here not to stick with surface=unpaved http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unpaved When it is so much more likely to used, and therefore so much more likely to be rendered, navigated, etc. There are the other surface=* tags that can be used if more specific information is available, but surface=unsealed is obscure to no benefit IMO. If there are no objections, I'll update the wiki. Thanks, Ian. ___ 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 ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] surface=unsealed in 4wd/dirt road tagging
Hi Ian, I don't think "unsealed" communicates anything that "unpaved" doesn't. If people want to be specific with surface=dirt, surface=gravel then that would be different. So - yes, go ahead. :) Steve On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > Hi, > > I know we had some discussion over 4wd/dirt road tagging. > > This ended up in the wiki as a recommendation to use > > surface=unsealed > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unsealed > > I really can't see a significant reason here not to stick with > > surface=unpaved > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/surface=unpaved > > When it is so much more likely to used, and therefore so much more likely to > be rendered, navigated, etc. There are the other surface=* tags that can be > used if more specific information is available, but surface=unsealed is > obscure to no benefit IMO. > > If there are no objections, I'll update the wiki. > > Thanks, > Ian. > > ___ > 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
