Eh, no time like the present. I may not leave these photos up forever but here’s just a quick sample of the variety of roads I go on. If we end up discussing these indepth I’ll put them somewhere permanent.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15u0CQQTI8GXhX8FeQcDvUoDUi9tByMWg?usp=sharing I would be inclined to tag all of these as surface=unpaved and surface:unpaved=gravel, with the exception of 000 (surface:unpaved=rock?) and 005 obviously (surface:unpaved=sand). And my views on the smoothness follow as well, and I’d suggest we update the wiki [0] to have more examples and relate it to more specific vehicles, bicycles, and foot access. File_000 with the 4wd is an example of a fire trail with exposed rock, impassable except on foot, running. Too steep to ride a bike up unless you’re exceptionally skilled or electrified. The track at the top and bottom of the image is just bare ground, no added aggregate. (smoothness=horrible) 001: a typical trail on a power line easement. You can see the grading and aggregate, but also the bare rock starting to come through (smoothness=very_bad) 002: graded and aggregate (smoothness=bad) 003: fire trail left-to-right through a MTB park: graded and aggregate (smoothness=very_bad) 004: near the coast. aggregate added but grass has grown up (smoothness=very_bad) 005: sand fire trail (smoothness=horrible) [0]: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness > On 4 Mar 2021, at 8:37 pm, Josh Marshall <[email protected]> wrote: > > I do long runs through state forest and national park pretty much every > fortnight. I’ll start a collection and post them up in a few weeks. What’s > the best place to put them so they’re somewhat permanent?... and that raises > the question; do we start a proposal page according to [0] or take it to the > tagging mailing list first? > > [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process> > > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 7:57 pm, Sebastian S. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Would you happen to have some photos of such unpaved roads? > > In my opinion we should consider adding a new surface tag if we feel we need > one and can describe the surface sufficiently. > > All this would start with some photos and a discussion in my opinion. Hence > the question. > > Cheers, > Seb > > > > On 23 February 2021 5:22:43 pm AEDT, Josh Marshall <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface> refers to railway ballast, > not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs on unpaved > roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface "gravel" in > common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute gravel as > described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously > depending on your point of view. > > This is a matter of interest to me too. I spend a substantial amount of time > running+riding on fire trails in NSW (all highway=track), and the surface > type is useful and indeed used in a number of the route planners I use. I > have changed a few roads back to 'unpaved' from 'gravel' due to the rule of > following the description in the surface= guidelines rather than the name. > > My question then however, is exactly what to tag the tracks beyond "unpaved". > > There are definitely sections that are somewhat regularly graded and appear > to have extra aggregate/fine gravel added. From the surface= wiki, these most > closely align with surface=compacted. But fine_gravel is potentially an > option too. Many of these are 2wd accessible when it is dry. (Typically > smoothness=bad.) > > There are also others, usually less travelled, which are bare rock, clay, > dirt, sand, whatever was there. Is it best just to leave these as > surface=unpaved, and add a smoothness=very_bad or horrible tag? None of the > surface= tags really seem to apply. > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 at 16:45, Little Maps <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hi Brian and co, in Victoria and southern NSW where I've edited a lot of > roads, highway=track is nearly totally confined to dirt roads in forested > areas, as described in the Aus tagging guidelines, viz: " highway=track > Gravel fire trails, forest drives, 4WD trails and similar roads. Gravel roads > connecting towns etc. should be tagged as appropriate (secondary, tertiary or > unclassified), along with the surface=unpaved or more specific surface=* tag." > > In your US-chat someone wrote, "...in the USA, "most" roads that "most" > people encounter (around here, in my experience, YMMV...) are surface=paved. > Gravel or dirt roads are certainly found, but they are less and less common." > By contrast, in regional Australia, most small roads are unpaved/dirt/gravel. > > In SE Australia, public roads in agricultural areas that are > unpaved/dirt/gravel/etc are usually tagged as highway=unclassified (or > tertiary etc), not highway=track. There are some exceptions in some small > regions (for example in the Rutherglen area in NE Victoria) where really > poor, rough 'double track' tracks on public road easements have > systematically been tagged with highway=track rather than > highway=unclassified. See here for example: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-36.1424/146.3683 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-36.1424/146.3683>. However, this is > not the norm in SE Australia and across the border in southern NSW, this type > of road is nearly always tagged as unclassified, as it is elsewhere in > Victoria. In SE Australia, my experience is that tracks are tagged in the > more traditional way, and not as has been done in the USA. > > If I could ask you a related question, what do you US mappers call "gravel"? > The approved OSM tag for surface=gravel > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface> refers to railway ballast, > not the fine crushed rock or natural surface that usually occurs on unpaved > roads in Australia. However we call the fine unpaved surface "gravel" in > common parlance, and many unpaved roads that don't constitute gravel as > described in the OSM wiki have been tagged as gravel here, erroneously > depending on your point of view. How do you use the surface=gravel tag in the > USA? Cheers Ian > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 2:49 PM Brian M. Sperlongano <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Hello all, > > Recently, there was a discussion on the talk-us list regarding how we use the > tag highway=track. That discussion begins here: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-February/020878.html > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2021-February/020878.html> > > During that discussion, someone suggested that Australian mappers may also be > using the highway=track tag in a similar way to US mappers. Hence this > message :) > > I've recently made edits to the wiki page for highway=track describing how > the tag is used in the USA: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#Usage_in_the_United_States > > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtrack#Usage_in_the_United_States> > > If there is similarly a local variation in how this tag is used, I would > encourage the Australian community to document their usage as well. > > Brian Sperlongano > Rhode Island, USA > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au> > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
