So, let me know if you disagree with this summary. "Highway" here excludes highway=track and highway=path.
A highway is "bad" (significantly worse for most people than its best possible state) when it contains any of the following tags: - tracktype=grade2/grade3/grade4/grade5 - smoothness=bad/very_bad/horrible/very_horrible/impassable - surface=ground/dirt/earth/sand/grass A highway is also "potentially bad" (perhaps under bad weather) if it contains surface=unpaved/gravel/fine_gravel/pebblestone/compacted. * A highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway is also "potentially bad" if it contains any of these other tags: - mtb:scale=1/2/3/4/5/6 - sac_scale=T2/T3/T4/T5/T6 - wheelchair=no No other tag or value is currently relevant for the assessment of how "bad" a certain highway is. Note: even if you agree, it doesn't mean that an application (such as a renderer) has to support all of these conditions. For openstreetmap-carto, it may suffice to add support for all conditions up to the asterisk (*). On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:17 AM, Fernando Trebien <[email protected]> wrote: > Hm there are a few types of vehicle ways > (highway=residential/living_street/pedestrian/service/cycleway) which > present high usage by non-vehicles, so I think it would also make > sense if the renderer also checked for these values: > - mtb:scale=0 > - sac_scale=T1 > - wheelchair=yes/limited > > Which, of course, could be checked for any other kind of way, but > especially for these kinds this check seems important. > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Fernando Trebien > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I mean, maybe the renderer can follow this logic: all untagged ways >> are paved ("good") by default, and they're represented as "bad" if >> they include any of the following tags with different values than >> those shown: >> - tracktype=grade1 >> - smoothness=excellent/good/intermediate >> >> Thus, it would ignore the value of the surface tag. This would leave >> our current tagging system unchanged. >> >> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Fernando Trebien >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> This is why I said that a full description that is useful to everyone >>> would require many more tags than we currently have (about 6 or 7 as >>> far as I can imagine). Note that the way in this picture would be >>> classified quite differently for each vehicle type (pedestrians, and >>> maybe bikes to some extent can do just fine on it, but not >>> wheelchair). >>> >>> I would tag this one as this: >>> >>> surface=asphalt >>> tracktype=grade1 (grade2 says unpaved-only and says nothing about potholes) >>> smoothness=very_bad >>> mtb:scale=1 >>> sac_scale=T1 (or maybe T2) >>> wheelchair=limited >>> >>> But I think different people would disagree on whether we should >>> render that as a 'good' or a 'bad' road. The potholes would likely be >>> temporary in many countries, but not so much in others. >>> >>> So maybe the renderer should consider all tags except surface and draw >>> the way as 'bad' if it is ever bad for someone (car, pedestrian, >>> cyclist or wheelchair user). >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Dave Swarthout <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Now that is a bad road, even though it's paved. Before reading anything in >>>> this thread I would have applied the tags surface=asphalt, >>>> surface_condition=rough_less_than_40 kph (used 1232 times). >>>> >>>> Now, I'm not sure what I'd do ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 8:19 AM, malenki <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Fernando Trebien wrote on Fri, 3 Jan 2014 17:56:15 -0200: >>>>> >>>>> >- people don't seem to agree on which tag to recommend overall to >>>>> > describe surface conditions: tracktype, or smoothness, or simply >>>>> > surface >>>>> >>>>> OSMers seem to agree that they need all of them. >>>>> >>>>> * Tracktype at least for more or less unimportant tracks, >>>>> * Surface for the material of surface of the road >>>>> * Smoothness at least for ways whose smoothness doesn't match the >>>>> smoothness one would expect when looking at the surface=value >>>>> >>>>> How else would you describe an asphalted road like this?: >>>>> http://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/lidar1.jpg >>>>> (from >>>>> >>>>> http://geoawesomeness.com/application-of-mobile-lidar-on-pothole-detection/) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dave Swarthout >>>> Homer, Alaska >>>> Chiang Mai, Thailand >>>> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tagging mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Fernando Trebien >>> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >>> >>> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) >>> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) >> >> >> >> -- >> Fernando Trebien >> +55 (51) 9962-5409 >> >> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) >> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) > > > > -- > Fernando Trebien > +55 (51) 9962-5409 > > "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) > "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
