Hi. Common usage is that surface=paved is any kind of sealed road including asphalt.
- Ben Kelley On Oct 24, 2012 9:23 AM, "Andrew Laughton" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi People > > Sorry if this has already been stated, I have not mapped since the > licence change and I am only reading some emails. > > I my humble opinion, surface=unpaved should not be used. > surface=paved should only be used is the surface is literally paved > with brick, bluestone, cobblestone, whatever. > surface=asphalt should be used for asphalt or bitumen. > surface=gravel should be used for gravel roads. > surface=dirt should be used if there is no surface covering, the track > has been literally made out of whatever the ground is made out of. > Think fire breaks. > surface=sand where there is no surface covering, but the ground is > sand or very sandy. > surface=concrete for concrete bike or walking tracks. > surface=wood for wooden walkways, jetty's and so forth. > > I even have a faint memory of using surface=grass, where the track was > very overgrown, but too many tags might not be so good for rendering > machines. > > I do not think I ever used it, but I think there is a smoothness tag > which might be worth some research if you are worried about a track > falling between 4x4_only=[recommended; yes;no]. > The 4x4_only tag might be better left to legal definitions set by rangers. > > As well as a speed_limit tag, thought should be given to a speed_avg tag. > Some roads might have a legal speed limit of 100 kmh, but you can be > lucky to get out of second gear because of the rough road surface, or > even heavily used roads that are normally very crowded, and the > average speed is actually not very fast. > The speed_avg tag would be handy for routing engines. > > My 2 cents worth. > > Andrew. > > > > > On 21 October 2012 12:03, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Folks, recent I have been going over parts of OSM mapped some time > ago, > > following up on the infamous redaction. One thing that jumps out at me is > > the inconsistent tagging of dirt roads. Even, I must say, ones I have > done > > myself but over a several year time span. > > > > So I started to write some notes for myself and thought that maybe I > should > > add them to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging I > > don't think this is inconsistent with whats there now, just more > detailed. > > However, I do suggest that we need consider what the rendering engines do > > with our data and I know that is a bit naughty. But, in this case, I'd > > suggest to do otherwise is negligent as it can have quite serious safety > > issues. > > > > So, would people like to comment on what I say here ? If we can reach > > consensus, I'll graft some of it onto the OSM wiki. > > > > Unmade roads > > > > These are typically forestry and remote tracks, while they may have been > cut > > initially by a bulldozer they are not regularly maintained and, > importantly, > > are not domed and don't have good run off gutters on the side. Such roads > > might or might not be single lane, 4x4 only, might be dry weather etc. Be > > careful about deciding on such restrictions, some people are often > surprised > > at how well a carefully driven conventional vehicle can use these tracks. > > Highway=track will typically render to a dashed line. > > highway=track > > surface=unpaved > > lanes=[1; 2] > > 4x4_only=[recommended; yes] > > source=survey > > > > Made but unsealed roads. > > > > Many rural roads fit here. There is no asphalt but the roads are 'made' > and > > regularly maintained by, eg, the local council. These roads often have a > > gravel base, always have dome shape, the middle is somewhat higher than > the > > sides and there is some sort of gutter at the edge. The gutter will > usually > > have "run offs" to drain water away from the road. Such roads are almost > > never 4x4_only nor dry weather only. > > highway=[unclassified; tertiary, secondary] > > surface=unpaved > > lanes=[1; 2] > > source=survey > > > > Use of the highway tag on dirt roads. > > > > While the selection of tags should not be defined by how current > rendering > > engines display, we cannot ignore the final outcome. In Australia, a lot > of > > dirt roads are quite important and sometimes its necessary to compromise > a > > little to achieve a useful result. So the correct highway tag may be > > determined by a combination of the purpose of the road and its condition. > > Tracks are often rendered as dashed lines and most people would > understand > > that means some care may well be needed. Unclassified would indicate a > > purely local function and is typically rendered as two thin black lines > with > > white between Tertiary roads usually are rendered with two black lines > and > > a coloured fill and many people (incorrectly) interpret that as meaning a > > sealed road, so maybe mappers should ensure they apply that tag only to > dirt > > roads that are reasonably well maintained. Secondary roads are shown as > > wider and a different colour than tertiary and are definitely presented > as > > viable routes for people passing through the area. Some care needs be > > exercised if a dirt road is to be classified as 'secondary'. > > > > > > Discussion > > > > Sometimes its hard to balance the description of a road against its > purpose. > > A good example might be the Plenty Highway. This road is probably a track > > from a road condition perspective, rarely maintained, sections of sand, > > corrugations and ruts. However, its pretty long and a major link between > > some (admittedly small) communities. As a 'track' it would not show up > on a > > map until you zoom in way past where you can get any idea of where it > starts > > and ends. At time of writing, its highway=primary (and, I might note, > > incomplete), that's possibly dangerously misleading. Conventional > vehicles > > routinely use it but I'd probably give it a 4x4_only=recommended tag. > > However, none of the mainstream rendering engines observe that tag, it > is no > > real protection for a visiting tourist. > > > > Similarly, even on the east coast, its not unusual to see dirt roads > defined > > as 'tertiary' or even 'secondary'. Thats probably quite correct from a > > purpose view but a lot of (especially city based) drivers get quite > nervous > > when they find themselves on a dirt road. If they have got there by > > following a OSM map showing a road with coloured fill, maybe they have a > > case ? Most printed maps here in Australia show unsealed roads without a > > coloured fill. > > > > And this does, of course, highlight the need to survey roads. > > > > David > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
