Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Szem]

2019.07.09. Richard Fairhurst wrote:

smoothness= is a horrible tag, please don't use it.

There is no consensus as to whether the smoothness tags are
relative to the tagged/implicit surface or not: is it possible to have
smoothness=excellent for an excellently smooth gravel surface?

I disagree with this and e.g. excellent gravel is impossible. The 
defintion of excellent road to use it with a (thin_rollers) roller 
blade, skate board (see wiki: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness)
I've made a small table of surfaces and smoothness 
(https://i.ibb.co/Nyfg179/Surfaces-and-tracktypes.png). A road can 
really only be characterized by the combined value of surface and 
smoothness, even on clear surfaces such as asphalt.
If only the asphalt value is given, we expect this: 
(https://i.ibb.co/7SxsJQN/Asphalt-Excellent.jpg), but it is also asphalt 
(https://i.ibb.co/SPSQyyC/Asphalt-Bad.jpg) Believe me, after 12 
kilometers of cycling, there is a big difference...
There may be even greater differences in unpaved roads. A general dirt 
road (surfaces=ground) is something like that 
(https://i.ibb.co/mh99rzF/Ground-Bad.jpg), but it may be better 
(https://i.ibb.co/xqgwNSc/Ground-Intermediate.jpg), or even much much 
worse (https://i.ibb.co/P9TtGz3/Ground-Very-horrible.jpg).
The tracktype is useful for predicting differences in dry and rainy 
weather. A grade1 road basically does not change after heavy rain, but a 
grade5 (smoothness=good in dry condtion) can become inaccessible (see 
this table: https://i.ibb.co/w62QWTX/Changing-of-the-smoothness.png). 
and adirt road (surfaces=ground) could be grade3, grade4 or even grade5!
It may be difficult to specify the three different values, especially if 
they are given subjectively. Definitions in the wiki are mostly quite 
accurate, but it would be useful to define the values ​​more clearly 
avoid creating bad pairs of values (e.g. surfaces=ground with 
tracktype=grade2 or surfaces=fine_gravel with smoothness=good)


Szem



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/agj4njek1r35vnz/2018-10-03-13.06.54r.jpg?dl=0 
 seems 
to fit well
- there are solid parts but it is not making track more usable and were not 
added with that purpose
(and probably not added by humans).

Images of that road would fit well. Are you maybe author of this image?
Can you agree to publish it on one of licenses listed on 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Choosing_a_license 
 ?

For example https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ 
 ?

Closeup of road, with big rocks visible (especially with boots/wheel visible to 
scale)
would be especially great as it would work well also a small image.


9 Jul 2019, 22:37 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

> I'm not sure what you mean by misleading.    The image I linked onjul 6 
> could be tagged as grade3 , It's mostly solid.    Is thatmisleading?    
> But you need 4 wheel drive, or an off road capablemotorcycle to drive it. 
>     Also look at the photos on thesmoothness page.   None of them are 
> soft.   
>     
>  I'll find some more photos.    Any photos I share are wide open toshare. 
>  Is there a license overlay that you need on them?
>  
>  
> On 7/9/19 11:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>
>>
>> 8 lip 2019, 03:22 od >> bradha...@fastmail.com 
>> >> :
>>
>>> wiki page
>>>
>> Can you link image of track
>> on rock/rocky surface wheretagging 
>> it as grade1, grade2, grade3would
>> be misleading?
>>
>> It at least should bedocumented at the tracktype
>> wiki page.
>>
>> It would be nice to have imageon an 
>> open license to be able to useit directly on Wiki.
>>
>> ___Tagging mailing list>> 
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>> 
>>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 Jul 2019, 20:07 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com:

> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
>
>> Can you link image of track
>> on rock/rocky surface where tagging
>> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
>> be misleading?
>>
>
> I'd have an easier time driving this grade5 (at least if that deadfall
> were cleared) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14061129423
> (basically the natural surface, just brush clearance) or this grade4
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041113235 (artificially graded,
> but still native material) than this grade2 (compacted mixed gravel
> and fines) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575.  The last
> one has worse rocks in spots than you see at that particular hairpin,
> but I was concentrating on not trashing my Ford while driving over and
> around them, and didn't photograph them.
>
> Surface material isn't everything.
>
> Interesting that all the pictures turned out to be from the same trip.
>
> If you want to use those images, let me know what license class I need
> to downgrade to.
>
Unfortunately difference is not visible in images at all :(

I thought about track on solid bare rock - that is clearly solid but, not
something where tracktype=grade1 would be useful, or something else
similar that would be clearly visible in images.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Brad, re:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/agj4njek1r35vnz/2018-10-03-13.06.54r.jpg?dl=0

This shows a track that cuts across a scree slope or alluvial fan of small
boulders, cobbled and sand which appears to be eroded from the ridge above,
in a mostly dry climate.

It’s quite bumpy so a low-clearance sedan would not work, but I think I
would ride my 20-inch wheel Bike Friday across this, if weather is dry,
albeit slowly. I’m not convinced that 4wd would be required.

If the surface is really very loose so that a regular rear-wheel-drive SUV
or pickuptruck can’t make it even in dry weather, that might suggest that
the tracktype is grade4 because the surface is not sufficiently compacted?

For example, a track across a completely uncompacted scree slope or loose
shingle streambed would probablybe grade 4: even though the surface would
be mostly small rocks, since the materials are totally loose the surface
isn’t hard or compacted at all?

The difference between grade3 and grade4 is probably the least clear, since
they are both “somewhat-improved” tracks, contrast to high-quality Unpaved
grade2 and nearly unimproved grade5

Joseph

On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 5:38 AM brad  wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean by misleading.The image I linked on jul 6
> could be tagged as grade3 , It's mostly solid.Is that misleading?
> But you need 4 wheel drive, or an off road capable motorcycle to drive it.
> Also look at the photos on the smoothness page.   None of them are
> soft.
>
> I'll find some more photos.Any photos I share are wide open to share.
> Is there a license overlay that you need on them?
>
>
> On 7/9/19 11:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
>
> 8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com:
>
> wiki page
>
> Can you link image of track
> on rock/rocky surface where tagging
> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
> be misleading?
>
> It at least should be documented at the tracktype
> wiki page.
>
> It would be nice to have image on an
> open license to be able to use it directly on Wiki.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

I'm not sure what you mean by misleading.    The image I linked on jul 6 
could be tagged as grade3 , It's mostly solid.    Is that misleading?    
But you need 4 wheel drive, or an off road capable motorcycle to drive 
it.     Also look at the photos on the smoothness page.   None of them 
are soft.


I'll find some more photos.    Any photos I share are wide open to 
share.  Is there a license overlay that you need on them?


On 7/9/19 11:11 AM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com:

wiki page

Can you link image of track
on rock/rocky surface where tagging
it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
be misleading?

It at least should be documented at the tracktype
wiki page.

It would be nice to have image on an
open license to be able to use it directly on Wiki.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[ael via Tagging]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 07:11:15PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 
> 8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com:
> 
> > wiki page
> Can you link image of track
> on rock/rocky surface where tagging 
> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
> be misleading?

The existing grades seem to be UK-centric, and useful in this context.

This discussion shows that they don't work well in some other places.

Isn't the obvious solution to keep the existing numerical grades
more or less unchanged, perhaps with a bit more clarification, but then
introduce gradeA, gradeB, ... or whatever to cover other sorts of
track? They might not even need to be ordered, although then the
alphabetic choice might be less straightforward?

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 19:19, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> Oh, and at the other end of the spectrum, this one is also a grade2
> (compacted mixed gravel and fines), two lanes wide and smooth as a
> baby's arse. I saw people riding racing bikes on it.
>

Are you suggesting we add smoothness=babys_arse?  Taginfo doesn't show it
as having
been used anywhere.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:18 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> Oh, and at the other end of the spectrum, this one is also a grade2
> (compacted mixed gravel and fines), two lanes wide and smooth as a
> baby's arse. I saw people riding racing bikes on it.

Some idiot didn't paste the link.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/19595349381

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:07 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> I'd have an easier time driving this grade5 (at least if that deadfall
> were cleared) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14061129423
> (basically the natural surface, just brush clearance) or this grade4
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041113235 (artificially graded,
> but still native material) than this grade2 (compacted mixed gravel
> and fines) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575.

Oh, and at the other end of the spectrum, this one is also a grade2
(compacted mixed gravel and fines), two lanes wide and smooth as a
baby's arse. I saw people riding racing bikes on it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 1:12 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> Can you link image of track
> on rock/rocky surface where tagging
> it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
> be misleading?

I'd have an easier time driving this grade5 (at least if that deadfall
were cleared) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14061129423
(basically the natural surface, just brush clearance) or this grade4
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041113235 (artificially graded,
but still native material) than this grade2 (compacted mixed gravel
and fines) https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14041171575.  The last
one has worse rocks in spots than you see at that particular hairpin,
but I was concentrating on not trashing my Ford while driving over and
around them, and didn't photograph them.

Surface material isn't everything.

Interesting that all the pictures turned out to be from the same trip.

If you want to use those images, let me know what license class I need
to downgrade to.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8 lip 2019, 03:22 od bradha...@fastmail.com:

> wiki page
Can you link image of track
on rock/rocky surface where tagging 
it as grade1, grade2, grade3 would
be misleading?

It at least should be documented at the tracktype
wiki page.

It would be nice to have image on an 
open license to be able to use it directly on Wiki.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9 lip 2019, 18:12 od rich...@systemed.net:
> 80% of the time surface= is all you need. We could do with more and better
> documented values for it, especially for clarity around gravel. I could see
> some virtue in another tag to be used _only_ when surface= is also present,
> documenting how well the surface is maintained, so that you could
> differentiate between (say) potholey, broken-up asphalt and immaculately
> maintained asphalt.
>
What about smoothness tag combined
with surface=asphalt or
paving_stones?

Is it also "die in fire" level of uselessness?

I used smoothness tag in past to 
indicate horribly bad asphalt/paving
stone alignments.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Richard Fairhurst]

brad wrote:
> I see tracktype as redundant with Surface, also very subjective, and 
> not useful.   Smoothness is very useful.

smoothness= is a horrible tag, please don't use it.

As a data consumer (for cycle.travel), I probably do more detailed parsing
of surface and related tags than any other consumer, and smoothness= is
almost always misleading and ambiguous. People use it to record their
arbitrary impressions of a path without any reference to an objective scale
whatsoever. There is no consensus as to whether the smoothness tags are
relative to the tagged/implicit surface or not: is it possible to have
smoothness=excellent for an excellently smooth gravel surface? What does
smoothness=good, highway=track actually mean? 

About the only circumstances in which it's useful are to record that a trail
is universally impassable. Otherwise it should die in a fire.

tracktype= isn't great but it has the advantage that it uses a clearly
arbitrary scale, so most people tag by reference to the photos on the wiki
rather than just because they think "this is horrible".

80% of the time surface= is all you need. We could do with more and better
documented values for it, especially for clarity around gravel. I could see
some virtue in another tag to be used _only_ when surface= is also present,
documenting how well the surface is maintained, so that you could
differentiate between (say) potholey, broken-up asphalt and immaculately
maintained asphalt.

Richard



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

I see tracktype as redundant with Surface, also very subjective, and not 
useful.   Smoothness is very useful.


On 7/7/19 7:41 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

No.

While tracktype= has some issues, smoothness= is more subjective and 
less generally useful.


Surface= is very helpful and more objective, so it should be 
mentioned,but I believe it is already suggested on most of the minor 
highway, path and track pages.


On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:24 AM brad > wrote:


Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally
useful?
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
"To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype
=*.:
to
"To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and
surface=*.   In some regions tracktype is also useful."



On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:


There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all
that usefull.

I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground
clearance.
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a
road that has been compacted.
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard,
smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a
skating ring (wet clay).

And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on
top .. with black goo underneath if you break through.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8 Jul 2019, 03:22 by bradha...@fastmail.com:

> Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globallyuseful?
>
Why it would be? So far I see need for better guide for using tracktype
on rocky surfaces where "subtle on landscape" and "soft" is not the same.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Joseph Eisenberg]

No.

While tracktype= has some issues, smoothness= is more subjective and less
generally useful.

Surface= is very helpful and more objective, so it should be mentioned,but
I believe it is already suggested on most of the minor highway, path and
track pages.

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 10:24 AM brad  wrote:

> Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally useful?
> The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
> "To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype
> =*.:
> to
> "To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and surface=*.   In
> some regions tracktype is also useful."
>
>
>
> On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:
>
>
> There is a visibility tag.
>
> So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.
>
> Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that
> usefull.
>
> I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.
>
> Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
> Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground
> clearance.
> Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.
>
> Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
> Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road that
> has been compacted.
> Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.
>
> But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, smooth
> and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a skating ring (wet
> clay).
>
> And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top ..
> with black goo underneath if you break through.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

Do we have close to a consensus that tracktype is not globally useful?
The Key:highway wiki page and map_features could be changed from
"To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
=*.:

to
"To describe the quality of a track, use smoothness=* and surface=*.   
In some regions tracktype is also useful."



On 7/7/19 3:12 AM, Warin wrote:


There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that 
usefull.


I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground 
clearance.

Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road 
that has been compacted.

Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, 
smooth and fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a 
skating ring (wet clay).


And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top 
.. with black goo underneath if you break through.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

It's a typical mtn road, used mostly for recreation today, track is 
appropriate.


On 7/7/19 2:37 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 7. Jul 2019, at 01:51, brad  wrote:

It is still used for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly 
recreational use.


if this is an access road to mines it might not be a track but a service road?

Cheers, Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Warin]

On 07/07/19 17:40, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

*"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road 
is..."

"... particularly regarding surface firmness."

In contrast, on Map Features it says tracktype is "To describe the
quality of the surface".

The maintenance frequency of a road is not directly observable, so
it's good if this tag is defined in a way that relates to the road
itself.

This was the original description for grade5 in early 2008:

"unpaved track; subtle tire marks, lack of hardcore, Soft with low
grip, subtle on the landscape."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:tracktype=71778

Until July 2018 the grade5 description mentioned that the materials
should be "uncompacted":

"Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard materials, uncompacted,
with surface of soil/sand/grass."

Should "not compacted" be added back to the description, perhaps?


There is a visibility tag.

So 'tracktype' should have that removed from its consideration.

Maintenance frequency ? Yet another tag. And not something all that usefull.

I don't think 'tracktype' is all that usefull.

Surface .. yes. Relatively easy to understand.
Smoothness ... yes. Should give an indication of required ground clearance.
Steepness? Yes - the tag is incline.

Compaction? Not a value I'd use.
Bear rock that have never been compacted can be harder that a road that has 
been compacted.
Rather have a tag for 'hardness' that 'compaction'.

But when it rains .. it can turn a 'good road' (compacted, hard, smooth and 
fairly level) into a bottomless pit (deep mud), or a skating ring (wet clay).

And then there are Australian 'salt lakes' .. a dry hard crust on top .. with 
black goo underneath if you break through.



Joseph

On 7/7/19, brad  wrote:

That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very
loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep,
since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates
hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance
vehicle.

*"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor
road is..."


On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or
naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while
it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with
sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of
unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply
impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad mailto:bradha...@fastmail.com>> wrote:

 What wiki are you looking at?   At
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype, grade5 says
 "Soft.
 Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
 surrounding soil. "

 What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
 Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

 Brad

 On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
 > Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
 >
 > 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut
down
 > any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
 > side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
 > "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
 > four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
 >
 > 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route
repeatedly
 > for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older
 ones are
 > only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central
ridge
 > between the tracks.
 >
 > According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost
 always an
 > unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as
 surrounding
 > terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since
 the local
 > soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
 > muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at
 random as
 > anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
 >


 _




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Jul 2019, at 01:51, brad  wrote:
> 
> It is still used for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly 
> recreational use. 


if this is an access road to mines it might not be a track but a service road?

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> *"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road 
> is..."

"... particularly regarding surface firmness."

In contrast, on Map Features it says tracktype is "To describe the
quality of the surface".

The maintenance frequency of a road is not directly observable, so
it's good if this tag is defined in a way that relates to the road
itself.

This was the original description for grade5 in early 2008:

"unpaved track; subtle tire marks, lack of hardcore, Soft with low
grip, subtle on the landscape."
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:tracktype=71778

Until July 2018 the grade5 description mentioned that the materials
should be "uncompacted":

"Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard materials, uncompacted,
with surface of soil/sand/grass."

Should "not compacted" be added back to the description, perhaps?

Joseph

On 7/7/19, brad  wrote:
> That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very
> loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep,
> since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates
> hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance
> vehicle.
>
> *"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor
> road is..."
>
>
> On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or
>> naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while
>> it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with
>> sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of
>> unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply
>> impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad > > wrote:
>>
>> What wiki are you looking at?   At
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype, grade5 says
>> "Soft.
>> Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
>> surrounding soil. "
>>
>> What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
>> Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> > Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>> >
>> > 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut
>> down
>> > any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
>> > side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
>> > "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
>> > four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>> >
>> > 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route
>> repeatedly
>> > for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older
>> ones are
>> > only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central
>> ridge
>> > between the tracks.
>> >
>> > According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost
>> always an
>> > unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as
>> surrounding
>> > terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since
>> the local
>> > soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
>> > muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at
>> random as
>> > anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>> >
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

7 lip 2019, 01:57 od bradha...@fastmail.com:

> What wiki are you looking at?   At 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says
> "Soft.
> Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as surrounding 
> soil. "
>
> What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
> Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.
>
There is already "almost". I think that it would
be ok to use different criteria for road on a bare rock.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

That is true if the terrain is agreeable.  Often it is steep and a very 
loose rocky surface so 4wd is necessary.  Even if it isn't very steep, 
since it is not maintained very often, if at all, erosion creates 
hazards in the road also requiring 4wd or at least a very high clearance 
vehicle.


*"Tracktype* is a measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor 
road is..."



On 7/6/19 6:21 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or 
naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while 
it might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with 
sufficient clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of 
unimproved clay, silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply 
impassable when it rains? But I’m not an expert on 4wd.


On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad > wrote:


What wiki are you looking at?   At
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype, grade5 says
"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
surrounding soil. "

What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
>
> 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
> any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
> side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
> "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
> four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
>
> 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
> for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older
ones are
> only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
> between the tracks.
>
> According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost
always an
> unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as
surrounding
> terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since
the local
> soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
> muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at
random as
> anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
>


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I would think that an unimproved track across naturally solid rock or
naturally well-compacted gravel would not be tracktype=grade5 - while it
might be bumpy, it’s probably passable by any vehicke with sufficient
clearance and tire size, even when wet, unlike a track of unimproved clay,
silt or loam which requires 4wd or is simply impassable when it rains? But
I’m not an expert on 4wd.

On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 8:58 AM brad  wrote:

> What wiki are you looking at?   At
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says
> "Soft.
> Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as
> surrounding soil. "
>
> What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
> Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.
>
> Brad
>
> On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> > Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:
> >
> > 1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
> > any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
> > side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
> > "easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
> > four-wheel-drive vehicle required".
> >
> > 2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
> > for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
> > only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
> > between the tracks.
> >
> > According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
> > unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
> > terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
> > soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
> > muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
> > anything from "grade1" to "grade5".
> >
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

What wiki are you looking at?   At 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype,  grade5 says

"Soft.
Almost always an unimproved track lacking hard materials, same as 
surrounding soil. "


What if the surrounding soil is hard materials???
Clearly written by someone that has not seen rocky soil.

Brad

On 7/3/19 2:09 AM, Mark Wagner wrote:

Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:

1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
"easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
four-wheel-drive vehicle required".

2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
between the tracks.

According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
anything from "grade1" to "grade5".




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

Here's one,
https://www.dropbox.com/s/agj4njek1r35vnz/2018-10-03-13.06.54r.jpg?dl=0
Maybe gets some maintenance every 10 or 20 years or so.  It is probably 
never soft, so it doesn't fit any tracktype definition. It is still used 
for a couple of  mines (worked by 1 or 2 people), but mostly 
recreational use.   This is higher altitude than most, but not unusual 
in the western US.


I think tracktype as specified is only useful for a small portion of the 
world.  Useful for flat, wet regions.



On 7/2/19 11:02 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

...

2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the
tracktype description (or de-emphasize it)

I am dubious about redefining extremely
popular tags. For start - can you link
some photos of places where current
definition is a problem?

The best would be photos on licenses
allowing upload to OSM Wiki or
Wikimedia Commons.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[marc marc]

Le 03.07.19 à 03:10, brad a écrit :
> Thoughts?

4) use smoothness if it suits your needs better
without changing the meaning of a tag used elsewhere in your region
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[marc marc]

Le 03.07.19 à 03:10, brad a écrit :
> Thoughts?

4) use smoothness if it suits your needs better
without changing the meaning of a tag used elsewhere in your region
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Joseph Eisenberg]

I believe smoothness=* is very important in dry areas, including most
of the western USA in summertime (when most people visit remote areas
on track roads).

But a road that is very smooth, dry clay in summer, for example an
unimproved track across a dry lakebed, will become impassible mud
after a hard rainstorm if the surface is unimproved clay or silt.

Here in Indonesia, I prefer to ride my 20 inch wheel bicycle across
very bumpy track roads filled with with rough river stones rather than
the smooth dirt on the side, after it rains, because the dirt become
slippery mud, but the rocks stay just bumpy (and slightly slippery).

So fully defining the condition of an unpaved road requires use of
surface=*, tracktype=* and smoothness=* - unfortunately the later two
can be hard to define clearly.

Tracktype is a little easier to verify, if you take "solid" to mean
"stones, rocks, pebbles and gravel" and "soft" to mean "sand, silt,
clay and organic matter", you can estimate whether the majority of the
roadway is made of one or the other.

Certainly tracktype=grade2 (mainly gravel and stones) is quite
obviously different than grade4 and grade 5 (mainly or totally
unimproved soil), though the exact cut-off between grades may be hard
to define.

This means that some tracktype=grade5 are very nice, smooth surfaces
in dry weather (that dry lake or salt playa for example), and only
impassible after rain, but that's still quite important information,
even in Arizona or Nevada.

Joseph

On 7/3/19, brad  wrote:
> A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
> Improved Road
> Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
> Four Wheel Drive
> Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
> Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets
> a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is a mess
> in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not impossible
> to render a good map.
>
> As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to distinguish
> between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel drive road.
> Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's dirt/unpaved/ground.
>
> Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " To
> describe the quality of a track, see tracktype
> =*. "
> But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the
> western US, since the first sentence of the description is
> Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but
> the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be
> smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
> It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively
> (grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the smoothness
> tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see roads that are
> clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2 and some graded
> gravel roads tagged as grade2.
> Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting from
> scratch that's what I would prefer.
>
> As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
> 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype
> description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage about high
> clearance or 4 wheel drive.There is some discussion on the
> key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
> 3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion
> page that is what many are doing.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 3. Jul 2019, at 07:16, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
> How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema!


this is an off topic comment here and is not comparable because with water 
tagging the meaning of tags should not be changed, but different tags 
(compatible because different key) would be additionally added.

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 19:10:24 -0600
brad  wrote:
 
> Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: "
> To describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
> =*. "
> But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the 
> western US, since the first sentence of the description is 
> Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but 
> the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be 
> smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
> It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively 
> (grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the
> smoothness tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see
> roads that are clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2
> and some graded gravel roads tagged as grade2.
> Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting
> from scratch that's what I would prefer.
> 
> As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
> 1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and 
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the
> tracktype description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage
> about high clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on
> the key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
> 3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion 
> page that is what many are doing.

Option 3 won't work.  Locally, tracks come in two basic types:

1) A logging road created by a work crew with a bulldozer.  Cut down
any trees, scrape off any remaining vegetation, level the road
side-to-side, and call it done.  These roads range in quality from
"easily passable by a passenger car" to "high-clearance
four-wheel-drive vehicle required".

2) A ranch road created by a truck driving the same route repeatedly
for years.  These are generally fairly smooth, but the older ones are
only passable by a high-clearance truck because of the central ridge
between the tracks.

According to the wiki, these are uniformly "grade5" ("Almost always an
unpaved track lacking additional materials, same surface as surrounding
terrain."), although calling them "soft" is misleading, since the local
soil produces a rock-hard surface during the summer and fall (and a
muddy one during spring melt). They're tagged pretty much at random as
anything from "grade1" to "grade5".

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Warin]

On 03/07/19 11:10, brad wrote:

A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest 
gets a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is 
a mess in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not 
impossible to render a good map.


As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to 
distinguish between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel 
drive road.    Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's 
dirt/unpaved/ground.


There is use of 4wd_only=yes/no see 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:4wd_only


And yes the wiki/osm is a bit of a mess.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-07-03, tr, 08:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> 2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype 
> description (or de-emphasize it)
> I am dubious about redefining extremely
> popular tags. <...>

  How come? You are pushing the changing of entire water tagging schema!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[Mateusz Konieczny]

3 lip 2019, 03:10 od bradha...@fastmail.com:
>  1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and
> de-emphasize  tracktype=*
>
Mentioning also smoothness tag is
perfectly fine and such edits can be
fine without notification mail.

Usually such mails are necessary only
in cases where there is some conflict
on Wiki when both sides consider
differing opinions as a clear consensus.

>  2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of thetracktype 
> description (or de-emphasize it)
>
I am dubious about redefining extremely
popular tags. For start - can you link
some photos of places where current 
definition is a problem?

The best would be photos on licenses
allowing upload to OSM Wiki or
Wikimedia Commons.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] track smoothness/quality

[brad]

A pretty standard nomenclature on maps in the US for unpaved roads is
Improved Road
Unsurfaced Road (High Clearance)
Four Wheel Drive
Other variations exist , but not too dissimilar.
Pretty simple and anyone who spends time in the mountains or forest gets 
a feel for what it means and has an idea what to expect.   OSM is a mess 
in this regards.   The inconsistency make it difficult if not impossible 
to render a good map.


As I read the OSM wiki,  smoothness=* is the relevant tag to distinguish 
between a 2wd road, a high clearance road, and a 4 wheel drive road.    
Surface is important too, but isn't sufficient if it's dirt/unpaved/ground.


Unfortunately, the wiki for highway, in the section for track says: " To 
describe the quality of a track, see tracktype 
=*. "
But, as described in the wiki,  tracktype is not very relevant to the 
western US, since the first sentence of the description is 
Solid/Mostly*/Soft.  Perhaps relevant to the English countryside, but 
the roads around here are usually Solid, but could be 
smoothness:very_horrible.   It seems redundant with surface=* also.
It looks like the common usage is to just use tracktype intuitively 
(grade5 is 4wd even if it's Solid), and ignore the wiki & the smoothness 
tag.  Unfortunately its usage is inconsistent.  I see roads that are 
clearly (by onsite inspection) 4wd, tagged as grade2 and some graded 
gravel roads tagged as grade2.
Tracktype could be sufficient if clarified, and if we were starting from 
scratch that's what I would prefer.


As I see it, two paths forward to improve this situation.
1) Change the wiki for highway so it mentions Smoothness=*, and 
de-emphasize  tracktype=*
2) Take the leading sentence mentioning Solid/Soft out of the tracktype 
description (or de-emphasize it), and add more verbage about high 
clearance or 4 wheel drive.    There is some discussion on the 
key:tracktype discussion page about adding grade6+.
3) Ignore the wiki, and just use tracktype.   I see in the discussion 
page that is what many are doing.


Thoughts?





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging