Hi All As a mad mapper I have been following this debate with interest. I own one of the fast graders. By that a standard family sedan setup for road performance so understand that not all gravel roads are equal. I bushwalk and the access to the walk governs the vehicle we take. I would support a classification system that enables people to identify, car gravel roads, high suspension gravel roads, 4WD gravel roads and extreme 4WD roads at least. A scale 1 to 10 has an attraction with renders choosing if they render 1-3, 4-7, and say 8-10 as different lines but understand that there are only so many line types that can be dreamed up. For me at the end of the day it is what my Garmin can show and not sure on its rendering limitations.
Anyway good debate and one that has brought a question to my mind. How and who votes on what is the method to adopt? I can fully understand that a city mapper might be very interested in defining a subway rendering while for a country mapper vehicle and walking tracks are the critical items. I would hate to think that one group would win at the disadvantage of another. Also rather aware as a member of a bushwalking forum that many people just want their ideas to win rather than the best "practical" solution. All I want is to be able to map the best that I can given the limitations on rendering. I must admit I have struggled with OSM definitations with something a simple as mapping a large lake causing confusion with me. One Google search had me ready to use coastline until another mentioned multipolygons. Ok maybe I am slow but it took me a lot of head banging to understand mulitpolygons and in a way was forced into using JOSM rather than Polatch. I would like to see a simple sandpit of OSM where the preferred ways are used so I can repeat the methods. To understand multipolygon lakes I picked on the big USA lakes to see how they were done to get an understanding and also received great help from the OSM community. It is a pity that some of the online help is rather abstract or missing logical steps. Though having written that I understand that it is a huge volunteer effort so grateful to those that have contributed to the help project. Anyway how do we get the process rolling and more importantly an understanding if all the effort can actually be rendered on the most common mapping GPS types. Cheers Brett Russell > Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:48:21 +1000 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government > > Kristy, you have spotted the problem, no clear acceptance of any one standard > when it comes to 4wd tracks. And while its being done a number of different > ways (or not done at all) we have little chance of getting the rendering > people to listen to us. > > In western Europe, little interest, complete lack of understanding of the > need. The US does have some great 4wd tracks but they are more recreational > in nature, you go somewhere, drive a great track and then go home. They also > don't understand our model of using these tracks to get to somewhere really > interesting ! Asia, (far) eastern Europe, get it but don't seem to want to > support the ideas. > > I believe (strongly) we need a multi level tag that indicates a track is > somewhere between "a bit dodgy" right through to "Oh wow". That, by its very > nature means its subjective, you and I might well disagree with at what stage > a typical SUV and inexperienced driver should be warned off. We cannot help > that, 4wds are all different, drivers are different in their skills and > willingness to take risks. > > The 4wd_only tag is 'official' and was a good try. But not used very much > outside of Oz. And its a yes/no and life is never a yes/no situation. > Further, so much OSM data ends up in a psql database, one column per tag. > Believe it or not, psql does not like having column names start with > numerals. It can be worked around but I suspect that's one reason mapnik (or > more correctly, its slippery map) won't show 4wd_only. > > I prefer an extension to the tracktype= tag, its already widely used > internationally and, somewhat, rendered on the slippery map. We can add three > more levels to it (grade6, grade7, grade8) being "possibly not suitable for > conventional car", "4wd stuff" and "4wd extreme". > > I currently use both 4wd_only= and tracktype= > > But I would support any new, sufficiently flexible proposal. > > I don't really this a physical meet up is necessary, be surprised if we could > agree on a convienant location ! > > David > . > > Kristy Van Putten <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Hi Matt, > >I think your conclusions is right, that we need to put an Australian > >standard together. It sounds like the ground work has been done (maybe even > >multiple times) but there has not been a clear acceptance of any particular > >schema. > > > >How do you think we should go forward with this? My suggestion is that we > >make a weekend of it, where we come together - where there are plenty of > >different types of 4WD tracks - and try and test the schema already made. I > >know I am still living outside of the country, so for me this maybe hard > >over the next couple of months. I am home in July for a couple of weeks and > >I am sure I could convince someone to lend me a 4WD. However it is winter, > >so it won't be the warmest weather! Maybe we could wait till summer? > > > >Would anyone be keen? > > > >Cheers > > > > > > > >On 06/05/2013, at 4:22 PM, Matt White <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> I'm also very interested in 4wd trails - it's what 80% of my mapping > >> consists of I think (that, and house numbers in the inner north of > >> Melbourne) > >> > >> The current 4wd_only tag was one of the tags I proposed a few years ago - > >> there was a massive barney at the time over the smoothness=* and surface=* > >> tags, and all I wanted to do was mark roads that were clearly tagged as > >> 4wd only (proper 4wd as in low range, high clearance). The > >> surface/smoothness debate was interesting, but got in the way of the > >> larger problem. > >> > >> I've come to the conclusion that the Australian mappers pretty much have > >> to go it alone in this area - what the Americans and Europeans call a 4wd > >> track would be a national highway for us (and we actually have a few > >> legitimate highways and primary roads that are 4wd/seasonal closure type > >> roads. I'm not a massive fan of the tracktype=* tag - it's a random number > >> that is too subjective. > >> > >> There was an attempt in Victoria a while ago to class various tracks > >> around the place as 4wd - the DSE/Parks Vic had a program where various > >> 4wd club members were trained in what constituted an green, blue, black > >> and double black road (very ski-trail), and got people out mapping that, > >> but it all went to pot when it turned out that the DSE/Parks Vic guys were > >> taking those results from the 4wd guys, and then either closing the roads > >> to management vehicles only, or grading them so they were rated green. > >> Pretty soon after that, the 4wd clubs got suitably annoyed, and stopped > >> supporting the initiative. > >> > >> To the best of my knowledge, we still don't have a decent "subject to > >> seasonal closure" tagging schema either - believe that Liz was at one time > >> proposing something, but I think she's given up on OSM post license change. > >> > >> I'd be more than happy to help put together an AU only/AU based 4wd > >> mapping set of rules and tags that we can use - if we can agree on > >> something, I can also mod the hi-res/4wd maps I crank out for the Garmin > >> devices to suit, and possibly even learn the Mapnik rendering stuff to > >> implement the rendering side in Mapnik (seeing as DIY often appears as the > >> only way the renderer gets changed). I wrote up some surface tagging > >> concepts ages ago I thought might fly for handling the surface issue for > >> 4wd tracks, as well as some general rules for tagging roads (eg: when off > >> the beaten track, it's critical to mark the entire stretch of road as 4wd > >> only or similar if there are no turns you can make to get off the road - > >> often once you are on a 4wd road, you tend to be committed to going > >> forwards...) > >> > >> Matt > >> > >> On 1/05/2013 10:28 AM, David Bannon wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 16:29 +0700, kristy van putten wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> ...... has anyone thought of 4WD trails in OSM? I would also be keen > >>>> to find out if there are any Ozzy teaching OSM to schools or scout > >>>> groups etc? > >>> Kristy, I have a particular interest in 4wd trails and OSM. I am > >>> particularly concerned how 4wd roads are recorded and typically > >>> displayed. The difficulty is that we all seem to use a range of > >>> standards and generally, the rendering people ignore them all. Perhaps > >>> not unreasonably. > >>> > >>> Just before christmas, I lead a bit of a campaing to get some clear > >>> standards in place for defining 4wd tracks, the idea being, consistent > >>> with OSM guidelines, that highway= be used to signify the purpose of the > >>> road and tags such as tracktype= be used to describe the likely state > >>> its in. Tracktype= already has grade1 to grade5 but 4wd tracks, needed, > >>> IMHO 6,7 and 8. Sadly, while everyone agreed something needed to be > >>> done, I did not see enough support for that idea to get past the OSM > >>> voting model. It therefore just a recommendation on > >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Roads_Tagging > >>> > >>> 4wd_only is another option, it is at least official. However, it has > >>> only one 'level' and apparently the rendering community don't like tags > >>> that begin with a numeral, makes postqress column names messy. > >>> > >>> Trouble is that much of europe and the US don't really understand 4wd > >>> tracks/roads, unless there is a widely used stand way of describing > >>> them, the renderers will ignore it, mapers won't see any results and > >>> won't bother. The poor old motorist will find themselves in serious > >>> trouble every now and again ! > >>> > >>> David > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Looking forward to talking to you all > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Kristy Van Putten > >>>> > >>>> Spatial Analyst, Data Manager > >>>> > >>>> Australia-Indonesia Facility Disaster Reduction > >>>> > >>>> Mb: +62 811 987 573 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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
