On 24/09/2014 1:27 AM, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote:
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:43:07 +0200 From: Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related
tools" <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] New key
proposal - paved=yes/no Message-ID:
<cabptjtd7kbdbxzs9p8kz-anrnb-d9g91d3hk1tfmsnk+dmh...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" 2014-09-23 1:12 GMT+02:00
David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>:
here we are on the tagging mailing list, to discuss tagging of objects
in the OSM database. With current tags it is indeed possible to say
whether a road is paved or not according to your own definition. The
fact that a particular rendering (carto osm) doesn't currently display
the paved attribute of a road has nothing to do when the question is
whether current tagging works or not. In fact, the maintainers of
carto osm have recently been discussing how to display unpaved roads
differently from paved ones, so this could come in the future. This is
really not an argument for the introduction of a new tag. cheers,
Martin -------------- next part
Message: 3 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 07:54:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard
Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] New key proposal - paved=yes/no Message-ID:
<1411484083204-5818261.p...@n5.nabble.com> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=us-ascii David Bannon wrote:
The truth is the paved/unpaved state of a road is being widely
ignored or incorrectly interpreted. The map at osm.org illustrates
my point, perhaps as well as an XKCD cartoon :-)
Yep, absolutely. But the way to fix that is to get the map at osm.org to
render surfaces, using the existing tags. (And I agree, that would be a
great enhancement.)
I was about to point you to
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/110 but then I
noticed that you're all over it already. :)
cheers
Richard
One more point against that I have not seen (yet) .. with this
additional tag you can get conflicts e.g.
Paved=yes
Surface=Unpaved
Oh .. you want to exclude paved/unpaved from surface? Ok, then we get
Paved=yes
Surface=sand
As per Peewee post - the definition of 'paved' vs 'unpaved' is open to
interpretation. But I don't think anyone would accept 'sand' as being
'paved'?
Some might consider 'gravel' to be 'paved' .. most won't. It is an
improvement over say sand, but then any track is an improvement over
virgin territory. Much better to get the detail of the surface. I do tag
surface=unpaved where the surface is made up of multiple things - one
length would be sand, another dirt .. and probably some bits of
bulldust, gibber and salt lake. Where it is substantially on type then
I'll put that surface down. Then the renderer can decide what is 'paved'
... anything else (including unknowns) should be classified as 'unpaved'
... this is the safe way as more people selecting paved may not be able
to use unpaved .. where as those selecting unpaved would be capable of
using paved. (And as points out it is a rendering/routing problem that
should be addressed by them, not the taggers).
Suggest the proposal is retracted, and other courses taken to rectify
this issue?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
