(Hmm, size limit in postings to list, makes sense...) Hi Ross, good points, not sure if they are great points however. I think it might be a case of the path of least resistance.
> tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track Yep, thats the biggie ! However, 4wd_only is not rendered on any OSM maps I am aware of either. You and I know better ... So, it seems to me that its just as hard to convince the render people about tracktype as 4wd_only. And tracktype has a lot bigger following. I have already been told by one routing engine group that "4wd_only is just an Australian thing". If we follow the model, suggested by yourself (?) that we mark 4x4 tracks by appending "(4wd only)" to the road name, then that can be applied to any road. Overall, I suspect its far from agreed that tracktype should apply to only highway=track. If we all put our shoulder to the door.... > .. my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used Thats the reason I got excited. tracktype is rendered on the OSM websites slippery map, see http://www.users.on.net/~dbannon/tracktype.png . Ranges from a single brown line to a line of dots. So that means the rendering engine is aware of the tag. It knows nothing about 4wd_only. So we'd need start from scratch there. > Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding. And I would not have it any other way ! I just saw a note that says, to the effect of "In Germany, we are not allowed to drive on most unmade modes". Sigh.... But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much "English country gardens", but thats something we can work on. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Bannon" To:, , "David Bannon" Cc: Sent:Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:48:28 +1030 Subject:Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ? Hi Ross, good points, not sure if they are great points however. I think it might be a case of the path of least resistance. > tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track Yep, thats the biggie ! However, 4wd_only is not rendered on any OSM maps I am aware of either. You and I know better ... So, it seems to me that its just as hard to convince the render people about tracktype as 4wd_only. And tracktype has a lot bigger following. I have already been told by one routing engine group that "4wd_only is just an Australian thing". If we follow the model, suggested by yourself (?) that we mark 4x4 tracks by appending "(4wd only)" to the road name, then that can be applied to any road. Overall, I suspect its far from agreed that tracktype should apply to only highway=track. If we all put our shoulder to the door..... > .. my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used Thats the reason I got excited. tracktype is rendered on the OSM websites slippery map, see attached. Ranges from a single brown line to a line of dots. So that means the rendering engine is aware of the tag. It knows nothing about 4wd_only > Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding. And I would not have it any other way ! I just saw a note that says, to the effect of "In Germany, we are not allowed to drive on most unmade modes". Sigh.... But yes, the current descriptions of tracktype are pretty much "English country gardens", but thats something we can work on. David ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] To:, "David Bannon" Cc: Sent:Sun, 28 Oct 2012 12:22:55 +1000 Subject:Re: [talk-au] 4wd_only Tag - is it the right choice ? You point out the problem with this: tracktype is ignored on everything except highway=track You would have to modify this in the rendering anyway. As 4wd_only can apply to any highway= tag it is more appropriate. From memory this was part of the original discussion when 4wd_only was proposed. Additionally my feeling is that because it's not rendered it's not used and Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding. Have a look through the original proposal on the wiki and also the smoothness discussion Cheers Ross On 28/10/12 11:00, David Bannon wrote: > Now, I am not suggesting that tracktype is a dropin replacement for > 4wd_only, far from it, the definition I read says to me it stops before > 4wd_only (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype ) but we > might find getting a grade 6 and grade 7 (or better still, > 4wdRecommended and 4wdOnly) added to tracktype easier than getting > 4wd_only=recommended added to the list. And if we do, then with all > those numbers, we may be able to get special rendering, and, importantly > special routing rules apply to them. > > Indeed, seems that at present, all five grades of tracktype are rendered > differently. Ranges from grade one as a thin but solid brown line to > grade5's small dots. > > So, I know this is not what was discussed, but do people want to re > think the agreed position ? > > David > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au Australian understanding of 4WD is definitely different to the European understanding.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
