Ross Scanlon <[email protected]> wrote: > To me this is really odd. If the track is 30km long and there is > 1km of 4wd only then is not this track all 4wd_only. As without a > 4wd you will not be able to go from one end to the other in a 2wd.
Only if the track has no other access. Said access may not yet be mapped in OSM. 2WD can also be used to get from one end of the track to the 4WD section, even if it can't be used to traverse the 4WD section. > Also any track sign posted as 4wd only should be marked in it's > entirety as 4wd_only=yes. What's the difference between "NPWS sign states 4WD only" (You can be fined real money for disobeying these signs), "You'd be crazy to drive a Commodore down here" and "Holy shit, how'd that Commodore get here?!". The tagging guidelines page isn't clear about this and people in general have no idea about how far you can really drive a 2WD if you're determined and skilled. Conversely, people in general have no idea how easy it is to get stuck in a 4WD if you are not skilled. Also, contrast tricked-out Toyota Landcruiser with Subaru Forester with 2WD rally car. These vehicles, ignoring driver skill, have vastly differing off-road capabilities. The 2WD rally car will go places the 4WD Forester won't. Clearly the Forester isn't a serious 4WD like the Landcruiser, but the rally car isn't 4WD at all. How to indicate that the Forester isn't suitable for a particular track? The 4wd_only tag lacks any of the expressiveness needed to solve the problem and the tagging guidelines don't address it either. -- Sam Couter | mailto:[email protected] OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
