My experience is that surface can have descriptive values that don't immediately indicate if the road is paved or not.
Things like "asphalt" (presuming paved=yes) and "gravel" (presuming paved=no) are common. - Ben Kelley On 22 Sep 2014 09:24, "Warin" <[email protected]> wrote: > Tagging for the render? > > You can have surface=paved or surface =unpaved! More detailes options are > also avalible. > > The argument on the routing not using the right method for determining its > route should be adressed to the router! Not patched to 'fix' the routers > problem. The router should descriminate on the surfaces its finds actptable > rather than ones it thinks are unaceptable. e.g. for paved it should acept > surface = paved, concrete, asphalt ... is that just too hard?! I'm > assuming cobblestones are unaceptable.. but if in France then they would be > aceptable .. some of their 'main' roads are cobblestones ... > > My vote would be 'No'. As surface provides the information .. in some > cases in more detail but the grouping into paved and unpaved is > resasonable. > > > > On 21/09/2014 12:25 PM, Ben Kelley wrote: > > 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" <[email protected]> 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 >> > [email protected] >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
