Am Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2008 12:11:48 schrieb Frank Sautter: > Nick Whitelegg wrote: > >>> i agree with you! my idea of how this should be rendered is: > >>> grade1: just like highway=service [...] > >> > >> It's worth noting that tracktype is not a universally welcome tag - > >> a lot of people think having an arbitrary scale isn't very > >> "OSM-like", and that it's better to tag specific characteristics. > >> We don't necessarily have anything better, of course. > > > > There is the optional surface=gravel tag to indicate a gravel surface > > for a track. A related tag for paths, rather than tracks, is > > width=narrow. > > i don't think, that our tracktype scheme is arbitrary at least for > tracks here in germany. i think the 5 different grades match the > condition of a track very good. > > grade 1: more or less the same as a service road (the same construction) > but through farmland or forest. surface is asphalt or concrete. 2 > vehicles can pass each other by using the gaveled shoulder. > > grade 2: track has a surface made of gravel, shoulder is often overgrown > by grass. > > grade 3: track has a surface made of gravel, but the area between the > middle of the way is overgrown with grass. > > grade 4: tracks consist mainly out of two tire marks, sometimes there > are muddy puddles. bumpy. > > grade 5: rarely used tracks. often completely overgrown, but it is > cleary distinguishable from the surrounding area. > > the only thing that sometimes is difficult, is to set the point when a > track reaches another grade (tracks are often getting worse, the more > distant they become from a major road) > > tracks are always drivable by 4-wheeled vehicles, as paths are not. > > frank
This is exactly the same way I am mapping tracktypes - it works perfectly. (and for any vehicle, not just "the mapper's bike" with "the mapper's driving style" applied) -Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
