Am 20/mar/2014 um 06:53 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
Wondering if any country would be doing worse than Brazil in terms of
road infrastructure, I found this:
http://global.umich.edu/2014/02/worlds-most-dangerous-roads-are-in-africa-middle-east-latin-america/
OT
Am 19/mar/2014 um 23:35 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
Please note that the track type scale goes from 1 to 5, there is no such
thing as a grade6
Indeed. What I said was I believe there should be 6,7 and 8. There is already
a small number of =grade6 in the database
as
Am 20/mar/2014 um 06:39 schrieb bulwersator bulwersa...@zoho.com:
Is it reasonable to expect that well tagged road contains all access
tags necessary to check whatever it is accessible?
In other words - is it OK to tag area like proving ground with
access=no, without tagging roads on
Practically I don't think it will work, as it requires much more data to
be processed in the preprocessing - I therefore agree with Martin.
But I think an intermediate solution should and could work:
If all entrances to the area are not accessible (e.g. gates, lift-gates
and such), adding
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:02 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),
No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
roads far, far worse
On 3/20/14 6:33 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
Personally I would consider routers to be buggy when they ignore
barriers tagged on nodes of the way, while I would accept them not to do
geometrical calculations between areas and ways.
absolutely they are buggy. here is one example from my own
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:40:15PM +1100, David Bannon wrote:
A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of
the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland. No part of it even
approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other
roads, world wide, often quite
2014-03-20 12:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:
That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as
similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk:
http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm
looking at those pictures it seems as if that's not even a track but a
2014-03-20 11:40 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),
No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
roads far, far
On 2014-03-16 22:37, Fernando Trebien
wrote :
Hello,
Following from this conclusion
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-March/016904.html),
I'm now trying to find a way to use tracktype, smoothness and surface
to improve routing quality. For an
2014-03-20 15:02 GMT+01:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com:
Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a particular
road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road classification
(primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on IGN maps) is very
subjective
In fact, the picture in this article does correspond to the
description of grade4: Almost always an unpaved track prominently
with soil/sand/grass, but with some hard materials, or compressed
materials mixed in.
Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
There may be various
2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
There may be various degrees of softness to be measured.
actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow dynamic.
If the surface is
The Russian winter roads situation is not unique. From what I have read, the
same situation applies in some parts of Canada and Alaska.
On March 20, 2014 10:58:01 AM CDT, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least
What I mean is that the same idea does not apply so often and so
extremely and in such a regular fashion and for long periods to other
kinds of roads. That's why I said in fact, of snow. I would expect
to see something very similar in southern Argentina and Chile, in
Antarctica, in Greenland, and
2014-03-18 17:31 GMT+01:00 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com:
4) interestingly, landuse=institution is not used at all, but
landuse=institutional a bit (68 uses)
yes, seems more consistent with the rest of the tags (e.g. we don't use
landuse=commerce but commercial)
cheers,
Martin
bulwersator wrote:
In my opinion all relevant access tags should be on way and its nodes,
otherwise it is unclear whatever road inherits access data from area.
Yes, and it shouldn't be a goal to inherit access tags from surrounding areas.
Even if mappers would consistently set layer=* on the way
David Bannon wrote:
Should I use this road or not ?
tracktype= does claim to use that approach
It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
documenting. The part about how well maintained
on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
johnw wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
there is a lot of stuff that isn't yet covered by
the well introduced landuses, including:
And somebody mentioned landuse=institutional at 68 uses. There's 332 cases of
landuse=civil, which we have used for areas and plots used for state or
municipality
2014-03-20 19:24 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
And somebody mentioned landuse=institutional at 68 uses. There's 332
cases of landuse=civil, which we have used for areas and plots used for
state or municipality functions that don't fit in the industrial or
commercial uses.
Even so, we would still have to presume things about the driver's
personality (an adventurous person would not care much about rougher
surfaces, while a precaucious one would probably rather avoid them).
We can pick a standard personality (we don't even know that very
well without some statistics,
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 11:50 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
Trouble is Fernando, that in many cases the problem is not in fact
'softness', it could be rocks, ruts, slippery, steepness, angle
(left/right) and lots more. The biggest
Hi
I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but after
reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost
like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of
them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none.
I
On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 15:02 +0100, André Pirard wrote:
Following a gentle dispute on OSM-talk-be about the class of a
particular road, I pointed out without any follow-up that road
classification (primary ... tertiary, as well as national ... local on
IGN maps) is very subjective but that the
Vali, great contribution to the discussion.
The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !
tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
for bike or walkers.
I sort of think
Thanks David
I don't like smoothness values either.
Problem is this key does't take in account other things that can prevent
certain type of vehicles from using that type of track. I put an example in
the last pic with a track with good surface but everything else is not so
good.
At first I saw
Vali, those are some of the nastiest tracks I've ever seen. No ordinary car
is going to be traversing those and even most 4WD will be forced to drive
very slowly in order to avoid the bigger, protruding rocks. As for
tracktype, there is no grade type to describe them unless we extend the
grade
2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com:
I have some pics to show what I am talking about:
http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1.
to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like
I generally agree with Martin's assessment. None of these tracks is all
that suitable for getting from one place to another in any reasonable
amount of time, if ever. The photos point out quite well the limitations of
the tracktype definitions.
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Martin
I believe I understand exactly what you mean, David, and I fully
agree. We could start by advising people to use the values for
smoothness in their descriptions. If so many people agree that the
current values are inappropriate, let's write a proposal for the new
values, get it approved (should be
We can't assume a relationship with road quality but I think we can
assume some approximate relationship with maximum safe speed. No
matter how smooth and well maintained a narrow (say 3m wide) road is,
you can't drive safely at 90kmph on it, specially if it has curves.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at
http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
grade5? In the wiki: Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard
materials, uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, with surface of
soil/sand/grass.
So if you guys agree that this is grade5 (or worse), what's written in
the wiki is far from accurate.
On Thu, Mar
But at least now I know I need to review my values more
pessimistically. (Which is what I wanted after all.)
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
grade5? In the wiki: Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard
33 matches
Mail list logo
