Hi. This sounds like a very good suggestion. Often you just want to know if the road is paved.
It seems like that was the original intent of surface=, but that is not how it gets used now. How surface= implies paved= sounds good too. - Ben. On 21 Sep 2014 11:03, "David Bannon" <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a > unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an > opinion on this. > > So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it > and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface= > > Comments folks ? > > David > > On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed > > from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it. > > > > Idea > > > > I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and > > probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved: > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values > > > > The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki > > doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the > > article about Key:surface. > > > > Rationale > > > > Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a > > given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface > > key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is > > given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular > > surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple > > information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very > > useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses > > to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the > > surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software > > only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key > > can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects) > > navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that > > describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software – > > if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly > > stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in > > consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved. > > > > If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would > > have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved > > or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes, > > so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in > > general are paved. > > > > I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values > > for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some > > cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also, > > the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly > > surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the > > information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values > > are set for the surface key. > > > > I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would > > encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to > > implement support for it in their applications. > > > > What do you think about that? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Tomek > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > tagg...@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
