Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[tj-osmwiki]

Thanks, that sounds very sensible. I'll use it in lieu of any better
suggestions.


Mark.

On 2020/07/21 7:48, Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:46 AM  > wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Good idea on the route references. What should the network be set to?
>
> Others on this list are better able to answer that question, but my
> opinion is network=US:FS: the end>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[tj-osmwiki]

Thanks Tod.

Mark.

On 2020/07/21 8:58, Tod Fitch wrote:
>
>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Tod Fitch > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> Clifford,
>>>
>>> Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
>>> surface reliably from aerial photos.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure - here is a
>>> link https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/7zQNGbyNQqBMj2S 
>>
>> Looks a bit different than the legend on my April 2020, Coconino
>> National Forest Travel Map:
>>
>> https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/eKCYzc4TfjMMfdN
>>
>> —Tod
>
> Oops. Deleted it off my cloud after sending email. Here is it
> again: https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/9nrCyifxX2swSH8
>
> Just looked at a map for the Los Padres and for the Sabino Canyon
> Recreational area in the Santa Catalina Mountains of the Coronado NF.
> Those legends are different yet.
>
>   * Is there a national standard that these forests are ignoring?
>   * Is it on a FS region basis?
>   * Is it on a forest basis?
>   * Does it vary based on when a map was published?
>
> I don’t see a consistent pattern with the FS maps I have at hand.
>
> —Tod
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[tj-osmwiki]

Thanks Clifford.

Mark.


On 2020/07/21 10:08, Clifford Snow wrote:
> The legend is just for the USFS road layer that is served by Mapbox on
> JOSM.
>
>
> Sent from my Android phone.
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 4:48 PM Tod Fitch  > wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow
>> mailto:cliff...@snowandsnow.us>> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM > > wrote:
>>
>> Clifford,
>>
>> Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
>> surface reliably from aerial photos.
>>
>>
>> Sure - here is a
>> link https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/7zQNGbyNQqBMj2S 
>
> Looks a bit different than the legend on my April 2020, Coconino
> National Forest Travel Map:
>
> https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/eKCYzc4TfjMMfdN
>
> —Tod
>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Tod Fitch]

Thank you for the clarification.

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 6:08 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> The legend is just for the USFS road layer that is served by Mapbox on JOSM.
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:48 PM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow > > wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM > > wrote:
>> Clifford,
>> 
>> Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
>> surface reliably from aerial photos.
>> 
>> Sure - here is a link 
>> https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/7zQNGbyNQqBMj2S 
>> 
> 
> Looks a bit different than the legend on my April 2020, Coconino National 
> Forest Travel Map:
> 
> https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/eKCYzc4TfjMMfdN 
> 
> 
> —Tod

Oops. Deleted it off my cloud after sending email. Here is it again: 
https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/9nrCyifxX2swSH8

Just looked at a map for the Los Padres and for the Sabino Canyon Recreational 
area in the Santa Catalina Mountains of the Coronado NF. Those legends are 
different yet.

Is there a national standard that these forests are ignoring?
Is it on a FS region basis?
Is it on a forest basis?
Does it vary based on when a map was published?
I don’t see a consistent pattern with the FS maps I have at hand.

—Tod



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Tod Fitch]

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM  > wrote:
> Clifford,
> 
> Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
> surface reliably from aerial photos.
> 
> Sure - here is a link 
> https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/7zQNGbyNQqBMj2S 
> 

Looks a bit different than the legend on my April 2020, Coconino National 
Forest Travel Map:

https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/eKCYzc4TfjMMfdN

—Tod





signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Clifford Snow]

The legend is just for the USFS road layer that is served by Mapbox on JOSM.


Sent from my Android phone.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020, 4:48 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> On Jul 20, 2020, at 4:35 PM, Clifford Snow 
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM  wrote:
>
>> Clifford,
>>
>> Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
>> surface reliably from aerial photos.
>>
>
> Sure - here is a link
> https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/7zQNGbyNQqBMj2S
>
>
> Looks a bit different than the legend on my April 2020, Coconino National
> Forest Travel Map:
>
> https://cloud.fitchfamily.org/index.php/s/eKCYzc4TfjMMfdN
>
> —Tod
>
>
>
>
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 3:46 AM  wrote:

> Clifford,
>
> Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
> surface reliably from aerial photos.
>

Sure - here is a link
https://mycloud.snowandsnow.us/index.php/s/7zQNGbyNQqBMj2S
-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Kerry Irons]

They apply calcium chloride solution as a dust control agent.  CaCl2, AKA 
“cackle 2”

 

 

From: Mike Thompson  
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2020 6:51 PM
To: brad 
Cc: talk-us 
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

 

 

 

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM brad mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com> > wrote:

Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around 
here (CO).  

I have lived, or spent time in, rural parts of four states (MN, IA, OH and CO) 
and I have never seen an unpaved road compacted.  They get graded once a year 
perhaps to remove the wash boards, and some have a coating of something applied 
to keep the dust down.

 

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 7:10 AM brad  wrote:

> Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around
> here (CO).

I have lived, or spent time in, rural parts of four states (MN, IA, OH and
CO) and I have never seen an unpaved road compacted.  They get graded once
a year perhaps to remove the wash boards, and some have a coating of
something applied to keep the dust down.
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Mike Thompson]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 4:46 AM  wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Good idea on the route references. What should the network be set to?
>
> Others on this list are better able to answer that question, but my
opinion is network=US:FS:
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Dave Swarthout]

Brad, using Alaska as an example, these roads are in fact, compacted by
vehicles driving on them. I have occasionally seen a power-roller or
sheepsfoot roller used to compact rural roads but such specialized gear is
mostly used during the building of larger highways. Typically a road is
built up with different sized gravels on top of a geotextile base. The
last, top-most layer is a mixture of fine-grained gravel, clay and normal
soil which is bladed smooth by a power grader. If the top-layer is
correctly composed, which depends somewhat on its proximity to a supply of
the proper materials, such a road can be quite nice to drive on. However,
rain will degrade that surface eventually and it will need to be
resurfaced. This is done on a fairly regular basis, but not IMO often
enough. And of course, they are dusty in dry weather and messy in wet
weather. The best time by far for driving on them is in winter.

I have never seen any such road compacted with equipment after the first
construction. The geotextile layer is critical to prevent heavy damage from
frost heave. All unpaved roads are built with geotextile, even driveways,
because otherwise they would simply sink out of sight in the spring thaws.
I live in Thailand half the year and always think to myself how easy it is
here to create a road. Simply scrape the area free of vegetation and large
rocks, build a form, dump some concrete over wire mesh inside the form,
smooth it a bit and you're done. Later on, do you need water for a home
across the street? Just lay the pipe atop the concrete, put a ridge of
asphalt or cement to hold it in place and you're all set. Water pipes in
Alaska must be a minimum of 4-feet below grade.

Hope this helps.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 8:09 PM brad  wrote:

> Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around
> here (CO).  Maybe a regional difference.  It seems like they put a thick
> layer of gravel on and let the traffic compact it.   Not fun to ride on
> with a bike, or a motorcycle.
> Do rocks tend to come to the surface of a compacted road and create a
> ball bearing interface?   If they grade it after initial construction,
> do they subsequently compact it again too?
>
> On 7/19/20 9:27 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:29 PM brad  > > wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for diving in.   If it's a very minor unimproved road and
> > not clearly service, I usually tag it track.   I would suggest
> > adding some indication of road quality.   If it's an improved
> > gravel road, I consider surface=gravel sufficient.   If it's
> > rougher than an improved gravel road, surface=unpaved (in my area
> > the surface is usually a mix of dirt, rocks, gravel, so unpaved
> > seems best),   and smoothness=very_bad (high clearance), or
> > horrible (4wd)
> > [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness], or
> > 4wd_only=yes .
> >
> >
> > A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel'
> > is like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine
> > gravel and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans
> > will often refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but
> > the difference is like night and day when you're driving on one!
> >
> > For the rougher stuff, 'smoothness' is essential. Consider also
> > 'tracktype', which addresses more the firmness of the surface rather
> > than its smoothness. A clay surface may be lovely in a dry season and
> > impassable in a wet one, despite having a fast enough slump that the
> > surface is deceptively smooth.
> >
> > Some National Forests separate Forest Highway (a regular access road)
> > and Forest Road (usually a logging track, might be inaccessible in any
> > given season, and often passable only to logging trucks and similar
> > high-clearance off-road vehicles). I don't know if any of them overlay
> > the numbering of the two systems.
> >
> > _Please_ create route relations!
>
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Matthew Woehlke]

On 19/07/2020 18.47, tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net wrote:

Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
difficulty in classifying forest roads.

It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.


FWIW, this seems to be endemic in TIGER data. I often suspect that 
everything that isn't a primary or secondary gets marked "residential".



For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.


Sounds about right, at least for the first and last. I'm less certain 
about "highway=track". (Not saying it's *wrong*, just that I don't know, 
vs. the others which sound correct to me.) Well, modulo Mike's comment; 
where I've been using "highway=unclassified" is for things that really 
don't look like service roads (e.g. that connect to other road networks) 
but likewise are clearly not residential. For example, 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/20453748.



TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.


Yup, that is known to be the case. As I understand it, TIGER was created 
mainly for census-taking, and so as long as someone on the ground could 
look at the map and figure out more or less how to get to the houses on 
a particular road, that is "good enough". Positional accuracy in that 
respect isn't nearly as important as *connectivity* accuracy, which 
partly explains the quality, but even connectivity can be dodgy. (As you 
noted, it's not unusual to be missing entire roads, or to have roads 
that don't really exist, and that's *before* we start worrying about 
changes that have happened since.)


--
Matthew

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[brad]

Hmmm, interesting.   I'm not sure they compact very many roads around 
here (CO).  Maybe a regional difference.  It seems like they put a thick 
layer of gravel on and let the traffic compact it.   Not fun to ride on 
with a bike, or a motorcycle.
Do rocks tend to come to the surface of a compacted road and create a 
ball bearing interface?   If they grade it after initial construction, 
do they subsequently compact it again too?


On 7/19/20 9:27 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:


On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:29 PM brad > wrote:


Thanks for diving in.   If it's a very minor unimproved road and
not clearly service, I usually tag it track.   I would suggest
adding some indication of road quality.   If it's an improved
gravel road, I consider surface=gravel sufficient.   If it's
rougher than an improved gravel road, surface=unpaved (in my area
the surface is usually a mix of dirt, rocks, gravel, so unpaved
seems best),   and smoothness=very_bad (high clearance), or
horrible (4wd) 
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness], or 
4wd_only=yes .


A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel' 
is like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine 
gravel and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans 
will often refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but 
the difference is like night and day when you're driving on one!


For the rougher stuff, 'smoothness' is essential. Consider also 
'tracktype', which addresses more the firmness of the surface rather 
than its smoothness. A clay surface may be lovely in a dry season and 
impassable in a wet one, despite having a fast enough slump that the 
surface is deceptively smooth.


Some National Forests separate Forest Highway (a regular access road) 
and Forest Road (usually a logging track, might be inaccessible in any 
given season, and often passable only to logging trucks and similar 
high-clearance off-road vehicles). I don't know if any of them overlay 
the numbering of the two systems.


_Please_ create route relations!



___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[tj-osmwiki]

Mike,

Good idea on the route references. What should the network be set to?

On 2020/07/20 7:56, Mike Thompson wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM  > wrote:
> 
>  For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
> highway=unclassified.
> 
> highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for
> "local traffic", while access to a lake could be considered "local
> traffic", I would think it would be better if these would be
> highway=service, or highway=track.
> 
> 
> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
> 
> That is what I have been doing as well. Some are recommending that they
> be made into route relations, which I am starting to do.
> 
> 
> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
> 
> +1 
> 
> Mike

-- 
Mark Brown
8-3-17-803 Shimorenjaku, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0013
Tel/fax: 0422 42 3151
Mobile: 090 8774 7483 (Japan)
+44 843 849 0359 (UK, VoIP)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[tj-osmwiki]

Clifford,

Could you repost the legend? It's hard/impossible to make out the
surface reliably from aerial photos.

On 2020/07/20 14:18, Clifford Snow wrote:
> If you are using JOSM there is a USFS road layer. The color of the way
> indicates surface and highway classification if I remember correctly. I
> posted the legend on Slack a couple of years ago. 
> 
> The TIGER import data quality varied from region to region. Even today
> in Washington State it's bad, so bad that I don't recommend using it. My
> guess is that it's low priority for counties to update Feds, especially
> when their budgets are already tight. There is even one county in
> Washington State that they don't even have a current road layer. 
> 
> Best,
> Clifford
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:48 PM  > wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
> the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
> difficulty in classifying forest roads.
> 
> It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
> highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.
> 
> For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
> communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
> unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
> highway=unclassified.
> 
> Is there a more consistent recommended method?
> 
> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
> 
> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us 
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> 
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
> 

-- 
Mark Brown
8-3-17-803 Shimorenjaku, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-0013
Tel/fax: 0422 42 3151
Mobile: 090 8774 7483 (Japan)
+44 843 849 0359 (UK, VoIP)

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Dave Swarthout]

Kevin wrote::
A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel' is
like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine gravel
and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans will often
refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but the difference
is like night and day when you're driving on one!

I must admit, this one really got me. For much of life when I lived in New
York state, where Kevin and I are from, locals called all unpaved roads
"dirt roads". When I started using OSM, I realized that the definition of
"dirt" here is closer to "ground" so I began to use either unpaved or
gravel for the surfaces of rural roads in Alaska and Thailand. Eventually,
I found out that gravel means the type of stones found on railroads, which
is big chunks of crushed rock and that the surface of the improved roads I
was tagging was actually surface=compacted with tracktype=grade2. The type
of mapping I do is 90% armchair mapping so it's difficult to ascertain
these characteristics so I default to surface=unpaved in most cases. Alaska
is an exception because most rural roads below the tertiary class are
well-prepared, unpaved compacted surface roads. These I feel confidant to
tag with surface=compacted and tracktype=grade2

My 2 cents.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 12:20 PM Clifford Snow 
wrote:

> If you are using JOSM there is a USFS road layer. The color of the way
> indicates surface and highway classification if I remember correctly. I
> posted the legend on Slack a couple of years ago.
>
> The TIGER import data quality varied from region to region. Even today in
> Washington State it's bad, so bad that I don't recommend using it. My guess
> is that it's low priority for counties to update Feds, especially when
> their budgets are already tight. There is even one county in Washington
> State that they don't even have a current road layer.
>
> Best,
> Clifford
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:48 PM  wrote:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
>> the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
>> difficulty in classifying forest roads.
>>
>> It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
>> highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.
>>
>> For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
>> communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
>> unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
>> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
>> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
>> highway=unclassified.
>>
>> Is there a more consistent recommended method?
>>
>> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>>
>> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> @osm_washington
> www.snowandsnow.us
> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Clifford Snow]

If you are using JOSM there is a USFS road layer. The color of the way
indicates surface and highway classification if I remember correctly. I
posted the legend on Slack a couple of years ago.

The TIGER import data quality varied from region to region. Even today in
Washington State it's bad, so bad that I don't recommend using it. My guess
is that it's low priority for counties to update Feds, especially when
their budgets are already tight. There is even one county in Washington
State that they don't even have a current road layer.

Best,
Clifford

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 3:48 PM  wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
> the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
> difficulty in classifying forest roads.
>
> It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
> highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.
>
> For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
> communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
> unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.
>
> Is there a more consistent recommended method?
>
> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>
> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
@osm_washington
www.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 9:29 PM brad  wrote:

> Thanks for diving in.   If it's a very minor unimproved road and not
> clearly service, I usually tag it track.   I would suggest adding some
> indication of road quality.   If it's an improved gravel road, I consider
> surface=gravel sufficient.   If it's rougher than an improved gravel road,
> surface=unpaved (in my area the surface is usually a mix of dirt, rocks,
> gravel, so unpaved seems best),   and smoothness=very_bad (high clearance),
> or horrible (4wd)  [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness],
> or  4wd_only=yes .
>

A nit: most 'improved' gravel roads are surface=compacted.  'gravel' is
like rail ballast; a compacted surface ordinarily has a mix of fine gravel
and even finer material such as sand, and is rolled. Americans will often
refer to a compacted road as a 'dirt' or 'gravel' road but the difference
is like night and day when you're driving on one!

For the rougher stuff, 'smoothness' is essential.  Consider also
'tracktype', which addresses more the firmness of the surface rather than
its smoothness. A clay surface may be lovely in a dry season and impassable
in a wet one, despite having a fast enough slump that the surface is
deceptively smooth.

Some National Forests separate Forest Highway (a regular access road) and
Forest Road (usually a logging track, might be inaccessible in any given
season, and often passable only to logging trucks and similar
high-clearance off-road vehicles). I don't know if any of them overlay the
numbering of the two systems.

_Please_ create route relations!
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[brad]

Thanks for diving in.   If it's a very minor unimproved road and not 
clearly service, I usually tag it track.   I would suggest adding some 
indication of road quality.   If it's an improved gravel road, I 
consider surface=gravel sufficient.   If it's rougher than an improved 
gravel road, surface=unpaved (in my area the surface is usually a mix of 
dirt, rocks, gravel, so unpaved seems best),   and smoothness=very_bad 
(high clearance), or horrible (4wd) 
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness], or 4wd_only=yes .


The USFS motor vehicle use maps (MVUM) are very useful.

I think most of the road signs say FS, and most of the tags in my area 
use FS, but the wiki 
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#National_Forest_Road_System) 
says to use FR .   I don't know the history, or if it really matters.  
If someone is reading a map & it says FR or FS, they probably won't even 
notice.


Keep this in mind when getting frustrated with the tiger data, I think 
we would have next to nothing if it didn't get imported.


Brad

On 7/19/20 5:50 PM, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Mike, welcome to the real world. Tiger street data is better than 
nothing but not much. It's positionally inaccurate and many roads are 
wrongly classified. a rough guide at best. I do use the Tiger Roads 
2019 overlay to add names to streets and roads though. The names are 
reasonably accurate in my experience.


On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Mike Thompson > wrote:




On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM mailto:tj-osmw...@lowsnr.net>> wrote:

 For
roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake)
but are
obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
highway=unclassified.

highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or
for "local traffic", while access to a lake could be considered
"local traffic", I would think it would be better if these would
be highway=service, or highway=track.


The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .

That is what I have been doing as well. Some are recommending that
they be made into route relations, which I am starting to do.


TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.

+1

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us



--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us


___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Dave Swarthout]

Mike, welcome to the real world. Tiger street data is better than nothing
but not much. It's positionally inaccurate and many roads are wrongly
classified. a rough guide at best. I do use the Tiger Roads 2019 overlay to
add names to streets and roads though. The names are reasonably accurate in
my experience.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:57 AM Mike Thompson  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM  wrote:
>
>>  For
>> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
>> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label
>> highway=unclassified.
>>
> highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for "local
> traffic", while access to a lake could be considered "local traffic", I
> would think it would be better if these would be highway=service, or
> highway=track.
>
>
>> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>>
> That is what I have been doing as well. Some are recommending that they be
> made into route relations, which I am starting to do.
>
>>
>> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>>
> +1
>
> Mike
> ___
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

Re: [Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[Mike Thompson]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2020 at 4:49 PM  wrote:

>  For
> roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
> obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.
>
highway=unclassified are for roads that connect small towns, or for "local
traffic", while access to a lake could be considered "local traffic", I
would think it would be better if these would be highway=service, or
highway=track.


> The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .
>
That is what I have been doing as well. Some are recommending that they be
made into route relations, which I am starting to do.

>
> TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.
>
+1

Mike
___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us

[Talk-us] Labeling forestry service roads/tracks

[tj-osmwiki]

Hi folks,

Editing in Boundary County, Idaho in the Panhandle, I've been extending
the forest landuse area around Bonners Ferry and have come across a
difficulty in classifying forest roads.

It seems that many have been automatically imported and have
highway=residential, which is just plain wrong.

For roads that appear metalled (paved) and/or access mines, quarries,
communication towers etc. I label highway=service, for roads that are
unpaved or sometimes seem to almost fade out I label highway=track. For
roads that appear to be public access (e.g. to go to a lake) but are
obviously even more minor than tertiary roads I label highway=unclassified.

Is there a more consistent recommended method?

The US Topo map gives forest road references so I add ref FS .

TIGER seems to be at best very coarse, at worst fictional.

Thanks.

___
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us