Hi David
Tho I can't say much about it yet, the outcome is for public use (within a
product). Once we have some details nutted out we hope to have some more
detail. We can't define 4wd_only=yes from 4wd_only=recommended due to software
restrictions and other difficulties. But we are certainly trying to get
4wd_only=yes defined, and surface=unpaved is already done. Like most things in
OSM, the end result really relies on proper placement and tagging - not only
roads but also places etc.
Matt, the Peninsular Dev Rd is certainly another example. In fact there are
heaps of Dev Rds that are state roads or major roads, but in quite poor
condition. Go to the extreme - National Route 1 across the gulf.
Nathan
________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 10:00 PM
Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Talk-au digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Lanes tag (John Henderson)
2. Re: dirt roads (John Henderson)
3. Re: dirt roads (Matt White)
4. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
5. Re: dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen) ([email protected])
6. Re: dirt roads ([email protected])
7. Re: dirt roads (Ian Sergeant)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:03:49 +1100
From: John Henderson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Lanes tag
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 21/10/12 13:40, Paul HAYDON wrote:
> It occurs to me there's at least one other case which warrants
> tagging the lanes - a two-way road (or section thereof) having only
> a single lane. I.E. when there are LESS than one in each
> direction, making passing difficult or unsafe at normal speeds.
>
> Any thoughts?
I reckon that's quite legitimate if two cars can't pass. Exceptional
conditions should be flagged as appropriate.
But I wouldn't think a road simply too narrow for two caravans to pass
should automatically get the lanes=1 treatment. Caravaners are
especially aware of the need to drive to the prevailing conditions, as
are truck drivers.
The width or est_width tags from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features are more appropriate in
most such circumstances.
John
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:12:04 +1100
From: John Henderson <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
On 21/10/12 13:28, [email protected] wrote:
> OK, I'm interested in what you say about lanes= John (and the rest
> too!)
>
> I use lanes=1 to indicate that a road is generally only wide enough
> for one car, if one approaches traveling in the other direction, both
> need to slow a little and pull of to the side. Similarly for
> overtaking. Thats actually a pretty important factoid, lots of
> caravaners for example would studiously avoid such a road.
That's especially important if pulling off the road is also impossible.
I can think of cases where roads cut into mountainsides have short
sections too narrow for two cars, and have a drop on one side and a rock
face on the other.
Don't forget the established use of tagging a way as
"access:caravan=unsuitable"
John
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:34:06 +1100
From: Matt White <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 21/10/2012 1:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Well said Matt, especially the bit about dirt roads being the fun ones !
>
> I might have made myself a bit clearer about why I posted. Firstly,
> because I want to ensure people are happy with proposed edits to the
> wiki. But secondly, I'd like to start a discussion about how our map
> data ends up being looked at.
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
>
In terms of tagging a 4wd-only road, my preference would be to render
the name, then the 4wd/SSC info eg: Conroys Gap Road (4WD only) or
Conroys Gap Road (4WD/SSC).
The Garmin maps I make for rural/bush driving append the '4WD only' to
the name, but the standard mapnik/osmarender tiles don't have anything.
I think the 4WD only marker on maps is a pretty key piece of information
- often times only part of a track would be regarded as 4WD only, but
perhaps there is no where to turn around, or the track is navigable in a
2Wd car in one direction (downhill) and not in the reverse, so once you
are committed to the track, there really is no going back. In those
instances, easily knowing the track is 4WD is an important requirement.
Also, if you are looking for example Primary/Secondary roads that are
dirt only, try the Peninsula Development Road in Cape York, or the
Buntine Highway (route 80) in WA.
Matt
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 14:54:03 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
On 21/10/12 13:35, [email protected] wrote:
>
> As you say Matt, 4x4_only is a good tag and well used in Oz. However,
> I don't know of any rendering engine that uses it, about the only way
> to find out if it has been applied is to go into edit mode. And you
> are right, we sure don't need 4x4_only=no anywhere !
Personally, I would find a tag
4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey
Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has surveyed
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
Ian.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:27:57 +1030
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads (Nathan Van Der Meulen)
Message-ID:
<d098e8dd6603a181d67df3d0657cc779d2a18...@webmail.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
?
Hi Nathan, rather than difficult, I'm surprised how in agreement every
one is ! Thanks folks !? If it goes on like this, I'll post a summary
in a few days.
> From: "Nathan Van Der Meulen"
> Firstly, just because a road is dirt (unsealed/unpaved) doesn't make
it any less important than many others.
Far from it, I live on a dirt road !
>? David, while the Plenty Hwy may be considered a 'track' by some
...pass a few Falcons and Commodores),
Yeah, when I was there a few years ago, we passed a commodore, he had
a broken rear axle.
> it is in fact a NT state highway ....
Yep, you have it in one. Thats the problem of trying to define both
the purpose and condition of the road using just one tag.
> ....These just need to have their additional tags like
surface=unpaved, 4wd_only=yes (or recommended) etc.
Exactly! But we need to see those tags used.
> I'm currently involved in a project using OSM data for map
rendering
Cool, is the outcome for public consumption ?
> highway=track as 4wd only tracks that don't serve a true connection
purpose
Hmm, I don't see it that way. Be happy to if thats agreed widely but
its not how I have been mapping. The wiki includes forest drives and
file trails under 'track', most of which are not exclusively 4x4.
> For our render, we use a different colour (brown) for all roads
tagged unpaved, and are trying to get a dashed line for all roads
tagged 4wd_only
Great, really great. But will the standards you use there be of any
interest to the people making the main stream render engines ? Thats
the problem IMHO, we put in these cool tags, 4x4_only= and surface=
but it does not show up on the maps most people see.
Do you plan to differentiate between 4x4_only=yes and
4x4_only=recommended ?
Thanks (everyone) for the constructive input.
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/a8e82711/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 15:35:53 +1030
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID:
<76a49564ab98ef63a11946c0f882229237c84...@webmail.internode.on.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
?
Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the
presence of the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ?
Currently, the default is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I
suggest its a bit late to change that behavior, too many roads already
in the database would need to be updated.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Sergeant"
Personally, I would find a tag
4x4_only=no
source:4x4_only=survey
Would be a great tag on a dirt road. In means that someone has
surveyed
it, and it doesn't require a 4x4. Great info to capture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20121021/08ae6bea/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 16:17:15 +1100
From: Ian Sergeant <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [talk-au] dirt roads
Message-ID:
<CALDa4YKmjJSOesT18u7pUev31vD6-hdXnWvycv7W3-r-ydJ=a...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On 21 October 2012 16:05, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian, would it be fair to say that your model would require the presence of
> the 4x4_only tag on all unsealed roads to be useful ? Currently, the default
> is that no 4x4_only tag means no restriction. I suggest its a bit late to
> change that behavior, too many roads already in the database would need to
> be updated.
Not at all. It is the correct default situation, of course, that a
4x4 is not required. However a good survey of roads that are remote
should consider including additional detail on the road surface.
Absence of this tag on a road (especially when aerially mapped) is no
guarantee that a 4x4 is not required. 4x4_only=no is a useful
observation to annotate (amongst other useful tags and annotations).
I'd hate to think that accurate survey data that a 4x4 is not required
on a remote road is removed because someone thinks that is the
default, so the tag is useless. Or worse still, does a selection for
all such tags in JOSM and deletes them all on the same basis.
Ian.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 64, Issue 18
***************************************
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
