Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Do., 13. Feb. 2020 um 12:02 Uhr schrieb ael :

>
> Well, yes, I thought that someone might say that. But such cases are
> very much the minority (except perhaps for motorways), which is why
> asphalt is still a reasonable default. I would expect an explicit
> tag for anything which is not asphalt. Again we are talking about the
> UK here.



at this point, one will likely decide to explicitly map asphalt as well,
because otherwise you can't tell whether it's asphalt or simply missing
more detailed information ;-)

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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[ael]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 10:38:14PM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> 
> Asphalt is certainly not an unnecessary tag in the UK. 
> 
> Whilst its safe to assume all roads are paved unless tagged otherwise. A 
> small number of lesser roads may not be paved.
> 
> The same assumptions cannot be made about asphalt, a significant part of the 
> motorway and trunk expressway network are concrete, which is  evil noisy 
> stuff and suffers from poor drainage. 

Well, yes, I thought that someone might say that. But such cases are
very much the minority (except perhaps for motorways), which is why
asphalt is still a reasonable default. I would expect an explicit
tag for anything which is not asphalt. Again we are talking about the 
UK here.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Florimond Berthoux]

Unpaved and paved values are valuable values.
It is not possible to tag the word with precision, all values are
imprecision of the real world.
Just some are more precise than others.

StreetComplete can have a quest for that, and there is a ticket about it
https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/279

Le jeu. 13 févr. 2020 à 05:45, Sebastian Martin Dicke via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :

> That can be a problem. If I survey streets on ground it is problematic
> if it is tagged in such way. Then I struggle with a map app that show me
> the surface, but with no visible difference between a sett or similar
> surface or just surface=paved. Additionally I use StreetComple to find
> missing surfaces. Surfaces mapped in such way you use are not considered
> as a missing surface. When are are more than just a few mapper in the
> country, it is better to omit surfaces if you was not at the place to
> find the right value. Some other mapper will do it later. But it is more
> difficult to find places with need for a specific surface tag, if there
> are already „raw“ values. Mapping works as team work, everybody do a
> small part. You should just omit things if you can not be sure.
>
> Regards
>
> Sebastian
>
> On 12.02.20 13:29, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:
>
> The most I usually do without a survey is surface=paved or
> surface=unpaved, with exceptions when I can see clearly what it is from
> the satellite imagery (like surface=grass).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Sebastian Martin Dicke via Tagging]

That can be a problem. If I survey streets on ground it is problematic
if it is tagged in such way. Then I struggle with a map app that show me
the surface, but with no visible difference between a sett or similar
surface or just surface=paved. Additionally I use StreetComple to find
missing surfaces. Surfaces mapped in such way you use are not considered
as a missing surface. When are are more than just a few mapper in the
country, it is better to omit surfaces if you was not at the place to
find the right value. Some other mapper will do it later. But it is more
difficult to find places with need for a specific surface tag, if there
are already „raw“ values. Mapping works as team work, everybody do a
small part. You should just omit things if you can not be sure.

Regards

Sebastian

On 12.02.20 13:29, Shawn K. Quinn wrote:

The most I usually do without a survey is surface=paved or
surface=unpaved, with exceptions when I can see clearly what it is from
the satellite imagery (like surface=grass).

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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Philip Barnes]

On Wednesday, 12 February 2020, ael wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:15:42PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> > 
> > >> > 
> > >> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags 
> > >> such as asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.
> > >>
> > >
> > > +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> > > unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> > > quite irritating.
> > >
> > Have you tried commenting on their changesets?
> 
> Well, in the examples I have seen, they are not actually wrong. Just
> unnecessary in the UK when asphalt is the default. I know some here
> always want explicit tags, and that is fine in local conditions where
> defaults are problematic.

Asphalt is certainly not an unnecessary tag in the UK. 

Whilst its safe to assume all roads are paved unless tagged otherwise. A small 
number of lesser roads may not be paved.

The same assumptions cannot be made about asphalt, a significant part of the 
motorway and trunk expressway network are concrete, which is  evil noisy stuff 
and suffers from poor drainage. 

In my experience  some cars suffer handling issues on high speed concrete roads.

And of course very many residential roads are also concrete, although lower 
speeds mean noise and handling are not an issue.

Phil (trigpoint) 
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[ael]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:15:42PM +0100, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 
> >> > 
> >> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such 
> >> as asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.
> >>
> >
> > +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> > unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> > quite irritating.
> >
> Have you tried commenting on their changesets?

Well, in the examples I have seen, they are not actually wrong. Just
unnecessary in the UK when asphalt is the default. I know some here
always want explicit tags, and that is fine in local conditions where
defaults are problematic.

I did send a message to one of the mappers, but got no reply. I suspect
they are based in the USA and applying USA conventions.

One reason that I find it irritating is where I have mapped roads very
accurately and then armchair mappers come along with poorly aligned
imagery with parallax errors and think they know better. So when I see
any change in such places, I usually check to look for unwarranted
changes. Which takes too much time.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Feb 12, 2020, 12:51 by witwa...@disroot.org:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:14:54AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> > OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page is
>> > to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is not
>> > referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
>> > question).
>> > 
>> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such 
>> as asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.
>>
>
> +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> quite irritating.
>
Have you tried commenting on their changesets?

If problem of such systematic damage continues - have you tried contacting DWG?

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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Richard Fairhurst]

Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different 
> street categories ? per country?

We had this thread already, didn't we?

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/048330.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-September/048338.html

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] implied surface values?

[Florimond Berthoux]

As a cyclist living in city with too many road with (bad) setts I’m happy
to know when a road is asphalt or not.

@Volker, wiki says that only trunk and motorway imply paved, check their
pages.

Though like I already said, implying tags is bad because it let data reader
guess what you think is implying which differ from people and location.
Guessing leads to errors, where as when there is tag the reality is stated.

Le mer. 12 févr. 2020 à 12:53, ael  a écrit :

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:14:54AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > > OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page
> is
> > > to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is
> not
> > > referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
> > > question).
> > >
> > In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags
> such as asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.
>
> +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> quite irritating.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 2/12/20 05:51, ael wrote:
> +1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
> unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
> quite irritating.

The most I usually do without a survey is surface=paved or
surface=unpaved, with exceptions when I can see clearly what it is from
the satellite imagery (like surface=grass).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 2/11/20 09:51, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street
> categories ? per country?
> 
> I noticed this phrase
> "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to
> highway=residential, paved is implied) "
> on the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:
> 
> in the table entry "Surface".

I would think you can safely assume highway=motorway is paved (and
probably highway=motorway_link as well) even in the most desolate of
countries (those that cannot afford to pave will simply have nothing
higher than highway=trunk). Beyond that it's going to depend on the
country and the part of the country. In many rural areas (definitely in
Texas, but probably most of the US) highway=residential and
highway=unclassified are usually not paved, and further I wouldn't
expect them to be explicitly tagged with the likes of surface=unpaved or
a more specific value implying lack of paving. This, though, is due a
lot of rural roads in the US coming from TIGER data and still, to this
day, at least a fair amount of it is untouched and may never meet
certain standards for accuracy (I've been known to refer to phantom
roads that originated from the TIGER import as "TIGER barf").

Even in greater Houston, I've seen many highway=service that are
obviously unpaved. For many years, the street that the house I am in
backs up to (next door to the house I grew up in) was a gravel road; it
was finally paved sometime in the mid-1980s. This is long after every
other house in the subdivision was paved (this area used to be out in
the sticks back in the 1950s, where I-610 marked more or less the end of
the urbanized area, but had long since been annexed by the City of Houston).

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[ael]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:14:54AM +, Philip Barnes wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page is
> > to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is not
> > referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
> > question).
> > 
> In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such as 
> asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.

+1. Some of the Amazon people do seem to be adding unnecessary and
unsurveyed surface=asphalt tags to many roads in the UK which I find
quite irritating.

ael


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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page is
> to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is not
> referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
> question).
> I have no problem with the statement that most residential roads in Germany
> are paved, and hence a router can assume that any unpaved residential roads
> in Germany have a corresponding tag.
> 
In the UK too paved is implied, I have never used paved. Surface tags such as 
asphalt, setts, concrete add the detail of what sort of paved.

Phil (trigpoint) 

 
> 
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 17:14, Philip Barnes  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > > Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street
> > > categories ? per country?
> > >
> > > I noticed this phrase
> > > "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to
> > > highway=residential, paved is implied) "
> > > on the page
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:
> > > in the table entry "Surface".
> > >
> > > I thought there was no such agreement.
> > > (I hope to be wrong)
> > >
> > It is a safe bet in Western Europe, but I am not sure about the rest of
> > the world.
> >
> > Phil (trigpoint)
> > --
> > Sent from my Sailfish device
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> >
>

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Rewritten to

"in many cases this can be successfully guessed from the way itself 
(for highway=trunk to highway=residential in many regions "paved" is a safe 
bet)"

Thanks for noticing and mentioning it here (but just editing would be OK).

Feb 11, 2020, 16:51 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street 
> categories ? per country?
>
> I noticed this phrase
> "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to 
> highway=residential, paved is implied)"
> on the page 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas: 
> in the table entry "Surface".
>
> I thought there was no such agreement.
> (I hope to be wrong)
>
> Volker
>

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

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Volker Schmidt]

OK, you confirm that the "paved is implied" statement in the wiki page is
to be read as "assuming we are in Germany ... paved is implied" and is not
referring to some wiki page that I have not yet detected (that was my
question).
I have no problem with the statement that most residential roads in Germany
are paved, and hence a router can assume that any unpaved residential roads
in Germany have a corresponding tag.



On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 17:14, Philip Barnes  wrote:

>
>
> On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> > Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street
> > categories ? per country?
> >
> > I noticed this phrase
> > "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to
> > highway=residential, paved is implied) "
> > on the page
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:
> > in the table entry "Surface".
> >
> > I thought there was no such agreement.
> > (I hope to be wrong)
> >
> It is a safe bet in Western Europe, but I am not sure about the rest of
> the world.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
> --
> Sent from my Sailfish device
> ___
> 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] implied surface values?

[Philip Barnes]

On Tuesday, 11 February 2020, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Do we have any agreed implied surface values for the different street
> categories ? per country?
> 
> I noticed this phrase
> "in many cases this is implied by the way itself (for highway=trunk to
> highway=residential, paved is implied) "
> on the page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Cycle_routes/cyclability#Tag_ideas:
> in the table entry "Surface".
> 
> I thought there was no such agreement.
> (I hope to be wrong)
> 
It is a safe bet in Western Europe, but I am not sure about the rest of the 
world.

Phil (trigpoint)
-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] implied surface values?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 11 feb 2020, alle ore 16:54, Volker Schmidt  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> I thought there was no such agreement.
> (I hope to be wrong)


there isn’t such agreement, if there isn’t any data you have to guess. In some 
areas you can suppose that 99,9% of all residential roads are paved, but in 
others many may be unpaved. Currently 45% of all trunks have a surface tag, and 
3 quarters of them are “asphalt”

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