I agree these threads are nearly impossible, but to continue the discussion could you post a link to the page on the wiki where the discussion can continue (possibly broken into sections). Thanks, Dominic
On 5 January 2014 07:05, Dave Swarthout <[email protected]> wrote: > Well said. I'm for that approach. > > These threads are nearly impossible to keep in your head as new comments > and views emerge. I'm not sure consensus will be easy to arrive at in > either case but it's worth a try. Create a new "unified" proposal page and > go from there. I agree that the smoothness values should be changed from > the "bad" and "horrible" type of very subjective words to something else. > Also, a range of 4x4 keys/values are a good idea too IMO. > > AlaskaDave > > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 1:07 PM, David Bannon <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> OK, this discussion is huge and conducted in a great manner. >> >> But being so huge, I feel lost ! So, here is an attempt to summarize >> where we are and what the options seems to be. Maybe by identifying what >> we already agree on, we can see the way into the rest ? >> >> If people think its a good idea I could post a more evolved summary onto >> my OSM wiki page where we could all have a hack at it, might be more >> manageable than the mailing list ? If nothing else, we need to break >> this very complicated problem into manageable hunks. >> >> Think of this somewhat like a flow chart, I just have not drawn it up... >> >> Do we all agree that its important that significant maps, such as the >> one on the OSM website, shows some indication if the road may be in a >> state where some drivers are uncomfortable (right through to >> dangerous) ? >> >> If Yes, proceed, if No, please explain why not. You may like to address >> this - >> >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-07/25yo-man-dies-of-thirst-in-outback-queensland/4357380 >> There are lots more. Tourists from outside Australia are at particular >> risk. >> >> OK, assuming we agree we want 'something' ... >> >> We need some tag (or tags) associated with a way that tells a rendering >> engine this way is one that might need caution. We can try and use >> existing tags or invent a new one. >> >> The "new one" option (such as BGNO's trafficability) could be tuned, >> based on experience, to do exactly what we want. On the other hand there >> are currently no ways in the database using that new tag. There are 3 >> million surface= and 2.5 million tracktype= tags in there. Mappers put >> used those tags in there for a reason. >> >> If you want a new tag defined, please say so, maybe with a new subject ? >> >> Continuing on, assuming we support using existing tags, which ones ? At >> lease three 'approved' candidates, four if you include 4wd_only. >> >> Surface= has about 3 million ways that are what we, in Oz, call >> 'unsealed', dirt, sand, gravel, unpaved and so on. This is not a bad fit >> but neither is it perfect. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Surface >> "To provide additional information about the physical surface of >> roads/footpaths...." However, my experience is that a precise statement >> about the surface does not necessarily relate to its >> "trafficability" (thanks for the term BGNO!). I have driven sandy roads >> that were so easy and somewhere else, spent a day with a shovel digging >> through sand. Similarly, hard packed clay can sometimes be preferable to >> a made gravel road that has developed severe corrugations. And a sealed, >> tarmac road that is breaking up is a nightmare. >> >> Tracktype= has about 2.5 million grade2 and beyond ways. "Tracktype is a >> measure of how well-maintained a track or other minor road is." >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tracktype >> Thats a lot closer to what someone (or a router) might be wanting to >> know. It can and should be applied to all sorts of highway= ways, not >> just =track and that seems to be a major problem. In some people's view >> (Malenki..), it should be used only when highway=track. I and several >> other people (and the wiki) disagree. The values of Tracktype are not >> intuitive. The values are linearly expandable, to cover more extreme >> road conditions, grade6 is already widely used but not approved. >> >> Smoothness= has about 25 thousand ways. Thats drawing the line at >> very_bad. But there are another 40 thousand 'bads' so its hard to call. >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness >> I am personally convinced this tag would be used heaps more if the >> values did not seem to make some moral judgment ! As I said before, I >> could never label the pretty road I live on as "horrible". >> There is some support for making a new set of values and that would be >> cool (Fernando, Martin). But has the horse already bolted ? Surface= and >> tracktype each have more than 100 times more use. Further, if we come >> up with new values, why not a new name ? Truth is, 'smoothness' is only >> a small aspect of trafficability (there, I used it again!). >> >> 4wd_only=yes. Used 3 thousand times, more in Australia than elsewhere. >> In hindsight, maybe it could have done with at least three values, >> 'recommended', 'yes', 'extreme'. It does cut in somewhat beyond the spot >> we are talking about, I get the impression that people want a road >> labeled differently long before we get to 4wd_only=recommended. >> >> Any one of the above, or a combination ? Personally, I think a >> combination would be over complicating it. Just my view. >> >> >> Other Issues - >> >> How to render it ? That can come later on I guess. >> >> Wolfgang, Peter, Janko, Gerald warns about subjective tags. Truth is, >> almost everything we record is subjective to some degree. I'd take the >> legal approach where they talk about a "reason person's view". For a >> normal road, thats someone driving a conventional car. For a mountain >> bike track, its someone riding a mountain bike.... >> Fernando pointed out that to make a truly objective assessment, we'd >> need many more tags and some elaborate technology to measure. Gerald >> suggested a smartphone app to do the measuring but is he allowing for >> variation of suspension in the vehicle in use ? >> David S and Dominic don't seem to want more detailed measures either. >> >> David S reminds us what highway= tag is about. Its to describe the >> purpose of a road, not in any way its "trafficability" (David S said >> "usability but I am starting to like trafficability...). he is right but >> the anomaly is highway=track, its use opens up, at present, the >> tracktype modifiers, wrong, wrong.... >> >> One important effect of the highway= tag is "more important" roads get >> rendered at lower zoom numbers. Useful when you want to see how to get >> from A to B. Sadly, we hear of people taging important roads as =track >> so their usability can be described by tracktype. And then you cannot >> see them at all at sensible zoom levels. Sigh.... >> >> >> Now, I have not mentioned everyone nor every view, impossible ! Thats >> why I think its time to move to the wiki, perhaps show a series of >> options and just see who really wants to vote for what. >> >> But, I really must thank Fernando for driving this issue, its very, very >> important and damn hard as well ! >> >> >> David >> >> On Fri, 2014-01-03 at 21:10 -0200, Fernando Trebien wrote: >> > a massive contribution... >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
