I think that they generically belong to Proposed
features/hazardhttp://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/hazard
of which the article in the discussion is very eloquent regarding the wide
scope or that tag.
I am surprised that this proposition is 6½ years old and that taggers
2014/1/17 Gerald Weber gwebe...@gmail.com
But why only roads?
So why not a more generic tag to alert people about all sorts of problems?
Oh please restrict that to official warnings! I can already see thousands
of hazard tags of
The shark attacks in Recife are alerted by official
On 15 January 2014 00:39, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote:
The tag as proposed leaves much to interpretations. But there are a bunch
of things one can say about a road that are crisp and clear:
covered_at_high_tide
not_plowed_in_winter
not_maintained_by_government
On 15 January 2014 13:55, Jean-Marc Liotier j...@liotier.org wrote:
On 15/01/2014 15:44, Gerald Weber wrote:
RS-630 is not passable during the rain season (May to September)
For other tags such as opening times, periods are encoded - which is
superior in any case to free text.
I've just
A tag called traffic_issue which would take free text as value (similar to
note)
traffic_issue='Road maintained by local 4WD club, passes over sandy inlet
that floods at high tide, four inch rocks placed by club restrict access to
high clearance vehicles'
[..]
and of course something for
On 6 January 2014 08:16, Wolfgang Hinsch osm-lis...@ivkasogis.de wrote:
Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 09:44 +0100 schrieb BGNO BGNO:
Isn't smoothness also based on some form of interpretation?
Cheers,
BGNO
I think that the problem lies less with the interpretation but with the
scope of
Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as
highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is
in use and what it connects (I cannot determine this from pictures
alone) with surface=dirt or surface=ground.
One other point I want to make. I
If you want a full justification of why a particular way was
classified as it is, then I think you need a reasonably full
description of a surface that would be useful for various kinds of
routing. Considering what we've debated so far and also the
characteristics that are used in many road
On 3 January 2014 04:35, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, that road is certainly not a good example of what we have in Alaska.
Our unpaved roads are all-weather roads and can tolerate a lot of rain.
The great majority would not degrade to that condition. They are a mixture
So these two roads you'd consider the same?:
http://www.malenki.ch/Touren/11/Galerie/Tag_20/slide_19.html
Based on the agreed practice in Brazil, I would tag this one either as
highway=unclassified or highway=track, depending on how much this is in use
and what it connects (I cannot determine
On 3 January 2014 15:19, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.comwrote:
I decided to extend my comparison between tracktype and surface, now
including smoothness. I think we may need a new tag to integrate all
surface quality classification systems (it can well be a simple
numeric tag).
For the average mapper, I think the best solution is to have a picture of
most surfaces and their corresponding smoothnesses. So a picture of
excellent asphalt, a picture of good asphalt,... a picture of intermediate
ground,... and a picture of horrible sand. And everything in between.
OsmAnd which is both a routing and a rendering engine for Android platforms
I am currently trying to get Osmand's attention to the same problem. The
point is that Mapnik's default rendering style is replicated to other
applications. Indeed, Osmand's style is nearly identical to Mapnik's.
On 2 January 2014 15:57, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.comwrote:
I like your idea of splitting surface values into paved and unpaved
tags quite a lot, Matthijs. It allows certain values (such as
compacted) to be considered paved or unpaved by different communities,
and it's easy to
14 matches
Mail list logo
