Carlos, I see your point. Thank you, Nuno Pedrosa.
> On 8 Feb 2017, at 12:15, Carlos Dávila <cdavi...@orangecorreo.es> wrote: > > I don't see the point of that example. It's a place in the countryside, so > people going there is probably aware they may need to travel over a track. > Anyway, there's a paved road that leads you only 220 m away from Las Lomas, > so you'll probably be able to reach the place even if unpaved roads are > disabled in the GPS. I'm sorry, but I don't see the need to mark unpaved ways > as paved. > > El 08/02/17 a las 12:27, Nuno Pedrosa escribió: >> Ok. But that will mean that in a generic map, a lot of places will be >> unroutable if the GPS is avoiding all unpaved roads. To reach them, the user >> will need to allow unpaved roads in the route. This will mean routing >> through sand roads and gravel roads alike. >> It would be great if the GPS could handle semi-paved roads, as was >> mentioned, but it can't. >> >> In a generic map, what will be most important? To reach the destination, or >> to avoid getting dirt in the car? >> In Cadiz, Finca Las Lomas, s/n, 11179 Vejer de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain, >> would be mostly unreachable if avoiding gravel roads. >> https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Señora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d!8m2!3d36.293836!4d-5.880006 >> >> <https://www.google.pt/maps/place/Escuelas+Profesionales+de+la+Sagrada+Familia+Nuestra+Se%C3%B1ora+del+Buen+Consejo+de+las+Lomas/@36.2938403,-5.8821947,17z/data=%213m1%214b1%214m5%213m4%211s0xd0c5074acf746b9:0x32a4ea0ba5f0c3d%218m2%213d36.293836%214d-5.880006> >> There are lots of places like this. >> >> A side-thought: paved roads aren’t always the best option for a given >> region. They are more expensive to build and when they degrade, they get >> “hard holes”(*) and fixing them up will usually create bumps in every hole. >> If the traffic is low, gravel roads will probably be a better option and >> better yet if rain is uncommon, as is the case in southern Europe. >> >> Nuno Pedrosa >> >> (*) by “hard holes”, I mean pot-holes where the edges are very steep and the >> wheels will crash into it. Gravel roads tend to create pot-holes with soft >> edges, a lot easier to drive over. >> >> >> >>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 11:39, Carlos Dávila <cdavi...@orangecorreo.es >>> <mailto:cdavi...@orangecorreo.es>> wrote: >>> >>> I don't agree with you. I think default style is a generic style, and as >>> such, it shouldn't do much guess but use the strict meaning of tags. >>> Gravel, fine_gravel, ice, etc. are strictly unpaved and I would mark them >>> as such in default style. More specific uses (mtb/race bicycle/4wd...) >>> require specific maps and thus specific styles. >>> @Mark: I'm also cyclist and for mtb use your "raining" point of view of >>> paved/unpaved is important to be considered. >>> >>> El 07/02/17 a las 11:57, Nuno Pedrosa escribió: >>>> Hi! In Portugal, Spain and surely a little all around, unpaved gravel >>>> roads are common, even on urban neighbourhoods. >>>> These are quite drivable and they will often be the only way to get to >>>> some places. They are also suitable to all vehicles, even if they will get >>>> covered in dirt. >>>> There are also a lot of paths going through sand (forest roads) and these >>>> will unsuitable to most vehicles (even a lot of 4x4s), regardless of their >>>> width. >>>> >>>> I find that while driving, the real issue will be the road conditions and >>>> width. Will the unpaved road be wide enough for a car or light truck? Will >>>> it have deep tracks due to soil erosion? Will the surface be solid enough >>>> to drive in a regular car? >>>> >>>> So, in real world GPS usage, I would like unpaved to mean “narrow, earth >>>> roads”, while paved would mean any road suitable to all regular vehicles. >>>> Example: due to wind farms being built in a lot of hill ranges, large, >>>> unpaved roads were built. These are gravel, wide roads, and often are a >>>> better option to the paved, sinuous mountain roads that go around every >>>> nook and cranny in the valleys. >>>> >>>> So, I think that fine_gravel, salt and ice should still be “paved”. >>>> >>>> Nuno Pedrosa. >>>> >>>> PS: Sorry to “butt in” the talk. I’m usually silent in this list, though I >>>> read most of the discussions. Your work is amazing and I find that I can >>>> add little to what is being discussed, so I try to keep my “noise” to a >>>> minimum! >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 7 Feb 2017, at 09:40, lig fietser <ligfiet...@hotmail.com >>>>> <mailto:ligfiet...@hotmail.com><mailto:ligfiet...@hotmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd call that semi-paved but Garmin doesn't have such category >>>>> unfortunately. Since the default style main focus is on motor vehicles >>>>> I'd suggest to add surfaces like fine_gravel, salt, ice to the unpaved >>>>> list. And please add soil to it, it seems a quite popular tag. >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Gerd wrote >>>>> This "raining" part is probably what paved/unpaved is about: The surface >>>>> of a paved road should not change when it's raining >>>>> and your vehicle will not be covered with dirt when traveling on a paved >>>>> road while it is raining (at least not from dirt which was part of the >>>>> surface). >>>>> >>>>> Do you agree on that (last sentence)? >>>>> >>>>> Gerd > > _______________________________________________ > mkgmap-dev mailing list > mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk > http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev _______________________________________________ mkgmap-dev mailing list mkgmap-dev@lists.mkgmap.org.uk http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
