subject:"\[Tagging\] surface=ground\/dirt\/earth"



 Am 20/mar/2014 um 06:53 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
 
 Wondering if any country would be doing worse than Brazil in terms of
 road infrastructure, I found this:
 http://global.umich.edu/2014/02/worlds-most-dangerous-roads-are-in-africa-middle-east-latin-america/


OT here, but I'd expect the reasons for these not in the road quality but in 
the driving culture and car quality and the quality and structure of emergency 
services. whether you make an accident depends on you and the others driving 
according to the current conditions (road state, weather, visibility etc), and 
after you made the accident it will depend on the safety of your car and the 
emergency services whether you die or not (mostly).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth



Am 19/mar/2014 um 23:35 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:

 Please note that the track type scale goes from 1 to 5, there is no such 
 thing as a grade6
 Indeed. What I said was I believe there should be 6,7 and 8. There is already 
 a small number of =grade6 in the database


as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst), adding 
grade 6 to 8 would mean redefining the whole system. Have a look at taginfo, 
everything beside 1-5 is used in neglect able numbers. Redefinitions never work 
well for tags (how would you know if a value was according to the old or new 
definition). if you are missing certain characteristics in the current tags you 
better propose additional tags (new) then to redefine what we have. For 
Australia I recall the proposition  of 4wd tags some years ago: 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=4wd

(don't know how well they are thought out and if they work)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 09:02 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),

No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
roads far, far worse that the grade5 description. And thats why we need
grade6,7,8, to cover those roads beyond the existing scale. Not to
reduce the gaps between each grade, but to extend beyond the current
range. 

We both agree it would be a bad thing to redefine existing widely used
tags.

WRT your answer to Fernando, again, Martin, I suggest, with the greatest
of respect, that you may not have experienced just how bad some roads
can be.

A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of
the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland. No part of it even
approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other
roads, world wide, often quite important ones, that are beyond grade5.

David 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread Richard Z.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 09:40:15PM +1100, David Bannon wrote:

 A few months ago, I spent two long days traversing a 250Km section of
 the Kennedy Development Rd in Queensland. No part of it even
 approached the grade5 described in tracktype= . There are many other
 roads, world wide, often quite important ones, that are beyond grade5.

That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as 
similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk:
   http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 12:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:

 That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as
 similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk:
http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm



looking at those pictures it seems as if that's not even a track but a
road. If it were a track or if you were to apply tracktype anyway to this,
I do not see a reason why this cannot be e.g. grade4. It is obvious that
bad weather (rain, but also snow and ice) can make a road unpassable.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 11:40 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:

  as the current system from 1 to 5 is an absolute one (5 being worst),

 No Martin, that is not the case. Nothing in the definition to indicate
 that grade5 is the worst possible. Fact is that there are very many
 roads far, far worse that the grade5 description. And thats why we need
 grade6,7,8, to cover those roads beyond the existing scale.



if you look at the tracktype wiki key-page (as well as on the original
proposal) it was never spoken of or defined any tracktype beyond grade5,
instead it is always about grade1 to grade5. Current taginfo usage supports
this view, where 99,9% of all values are within this range.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/?key=tracktype#values

Now let's look at the definitions, tracktype is often seen as how much
constructed a track is, and grade5 is a not constructed track, in the
image covered by vegetation (grass). Now what can be less constructed than
not costructed at all? Obviously these exemplaric pictures are useful for
reference only in a small geographical window (namely central / northern
Europe), while already in southern Europe it will be difficult to find
situations like these (less water and therefore less and different
vegetation).

Photos in general have the advantage that they can communicate quite well
to someone in the same setting what is thought of by a tag, but they also
bear the risk that you think (in a different setting) I don't have
something like this here, that's why I'd personally prefer to not use
photos in tag definitions or to add more of them to show different examples
for the same thing in different settings (so that it becomes clearer that
these are only illustrations and the feature might actually look quite
different).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

In fact, the picture in this article does correspond to the
description of grade4: Almost always an unpaved track prominently
with soil/sand/grass, but with some hard materials, or compressed
materials mixed in.

Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
There may be various degrees of softness to be measured. Could they
be measured without too much hassle? The picture seems to give me a
clue: the car is practically half-sunken in the ground. It kind of
reminds me of how smoothness=very_bad is defined: high_clearance.
However, the reason in the context of tracktype would be different: in
smoothness, high clearance is required because of the shape of the
surface. On tracktype, it would be required because the vehicle (heavy
as it is and with wheels of some particular contact area) would
otherwise sink that much into the ground. Lighter vehicles and those
with larger wheels (larger contact areas) would be less likely to
sink, even if smoothness is the same.

At the same time, if you also think of surface shape, it's hard to
argue it should be anything better than
smoothness=very_horrible/specialized_off_road_wheels (tractor, ATV,
tanks, trial, Mountain bike and all kind of off-highway vehicles). At
least (subjectively) I wouldn't expect it to be passable by anything
smaller than a tractor without imposing risks or severe difficulties.
So, if applications used both tags as limiting factors, the driver
would stay safe as long as mappers applied both tags. Still, there may
be situations with near perfect smoothness and almost no
firmness/durability; an extreme situation would be quicksand.

David, I tried to search for images of the Kennedy Development Rd in
Queensland but none of the images I got would be tagged as
tracktype=grade5. Do you have any example or any similar picture for
what you've experienced? Or maybe a coordinate that we can have a peek
at on Street View (either Google's or OpenStreetView)?

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014-03-20 12:42 GMT+01:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com:

 That means that the description of grade5 in the wiki should be fixed as
 similar or worse than the road to Jakutsk:
http://www.ssqq.com/ARCHIVE/vinlin27c.htm



 looking at those pictures it seems as if that's not even a track but a road.
 If it were a track or if you were to apply tracktype anyway to this, I do
 not see a reason why this cannot be e.g. grade4. It is obvious that bad
 weather (rain, but also snow and ice) can make a road unpassable.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

 Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
 There may be various degrees of softness to be measured.



actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow dynamic.
If the surface is unpaved it will depend a lot on past weather conditions
whether a road is nice to use or not. The same road can be an unsurpassable
mud inferno or frozen with lots of snow over it so it becomes nice and
smooth, all dependent on the season. The russians had proposed a feature
winter_road to account for some of these features, in different climatic
conditions (e.g. with heavy rain periods) we might need additional tagging
as well.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread John F. Eldredge

The Russian winter roads situation is not unique.  From what I have read, the 
same situation applies in some parts of Canada and Alaska.


On March 20, 2014 10:58:01 AM CDT, Fernando Trebien 
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least
 expected to be permanent) when they happen. Sometimes it's due to poor
 administration, which changes only every 4 years. Sometimes it's due
 to poor construction, which costs a lot to fix. Sometimes it's due to
 weather, which in many cases is not inconstant through the seasons.
 But sometimes they are indeed dynamic/seasonal, though it's rare to
 see a large (say, from grade5 to grade1, or from horrible to good
 smoothness), so in these cases most people will choose to either
 approximate the average or the pessimistic scenario (not so much
 different from the average). When a large change happens (in case of a
 natural disaster, for instance, floods), it's either temporary (the
 situation goes back to normal) or permanent (it takes a long time to
 get fixed), but not recurring (if it's fixed within a year, most
 people won't expect it to happen again next year at the same place,
 but surely it could repeat if the fix was poorly conducted). So I
 think the case of the Russians (in fact, of snow) is quite unique.
 
 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
 
  Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
  There may be various degrees of softness to be measured.
 
 
 
  actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow
 dynamic.
  If the surface is unpaved it will depend a lot on past weather
 conditions
  whether a road is nice to use or not. The same road can be an
 unsurpassable
  mud inferno or frozen with lots of snow over it so it becomes nice
 and
  smooth, all dependent on the season. The russians had proposed a
 feature
  winter_road to account for some of these features, in different
 climatic
  conditions (e.g. with heavy rain periods) we might need additional
 tagging
  as well.
 
  cheers,
  Martin
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive 
out hate; only love can do that.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

What I mean is that the same idea does not apply so often and so
extremely and in such a regular fashion and for long periods to other
kinds of roads. That's why I said in fact, of snow. I would expect
to see something very similar in southern Argentina and Chile, in
Antarctica, in Greenland, and in Scandinavia.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:05 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
 The Russian winter roads situation is not unique.  From what I have read, 
 the same situation applies in some parts of Canada and Alaska.


 On March 20, 2014 10:58:01 AM CDT, Fernando Trebien 
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 In Brazil, these conditions are somewhat often permanent (or at least
 expected to be permanent) when they happen. Sometimes it's due to poor
 administration, which changes only every 4 years. Sometimes it's due
 to poor construction, which costs a lot to fix. Sometimes it's due to
 weather, which in many cases is not inconstant through the seasons.
 But sometimes they are indeed dynamic/seasonal, though it's rare to
 see a large (say, from grade5 to grade1, or from horrible to good
 smoothness), so in these cases most people will choose to either
 approximate the average or the pessimistic scenario (not so much
 different from the average). When a large change happens (in case of a
 natural disaster, for instance, floods), it's either temporary (the
 situation goes back to normal) or permanent (it takes a long time to
 get fixed), but not recurring (if it's fixed within a year, most
 people won't expect it to happen again next year at the same place,
 but surely it could repeat if the fix was poorly conducted). So I
 think the case of the Russians (in fact, of snow) is quite unique.

 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  2014-03-20 15:50 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
 
  Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.
  There may be various degrees of softness to be measured.
 
 
 
  actually to me the problem seems that these properties are somehow
 dynamic.
  If the surface is unpaved it will depend a lot on past weather
 conditions
  whether a road is nice to use or not. The same road can be an
 unsurpassable
  mud inferno or frozen with lots of snow over it so it becomes nice
 and
  smooth, all dependent on the season. The russians had proposed a
 feature
  winter_road to account for some of these features, in different
 climatic
  conditions (e.g. with heavy rain periods) we might need additional
 tagging
  as well.
 
  cheers,
  Martin
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 

 --
 John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
 Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.  Hate cannot 
 drive out hate; only love can do that.
 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread Kytömaa Lauri

David Bannon wrote:
Should I use this road or not ?
 tracktype= does claim to use that approach 

It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at 
documenting. The part about how well maintained
on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about
the most influential attribute of the road construction
(or lack of, among the easily observable attributes), 
of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the 
conditions road users see on any ways not up to 
the highway standards of the present day. 

So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only
to soft materials only. The connection to maintained
is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a 
good approximation of the maintenance, but there can
be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?)
maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on 
exposed solid rock is hard materials only even if nobody
ever raised a finger to build the way. 

A user can deduce expectations from the combination
of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and 
local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=*
if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users.

There can not be anything beyond soft materials only,
that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used 
the tag to describe their assessment of should i use or 
not, the meaning of the tag has diverged from the
use in other regions, and we'll never know which one
was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference
- it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in
disagreement.)

If mappers want to tag a subjective should i use it,
it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials
scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user?

-- 
Alv
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon

On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 11:50 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:

 Perhaps what people worry about here is how soft the surface is.

Trouble is Fernando, that in many cases the problem is not in fact
'softness', it could be rocks, ruts, slippery, steepness, angle
(left/right) and lots more. The biggest issue along the Kennedy for
example is large ruts or washaways in the road that can be difficult to
see. Ruts are typically caused by the very large trucks used up there to
move cattle or mining equipment and the washaways by the occasional, but
intense, rain.

 reminds me of how smoothness=very_bad is defined: high_clearance.

I have to admit that my problem with smoothness= is that its values seem
so judgmental.  The delightful road that I live on would be described as
'bad'    Many Australians drive huge distances for the challenge of
driving on roads smoothness=very_horrible. 

Just like 'softness' does not cover all issue, neither does
'smoothness'. smoothness= has a very good set of values and is well
documented but not well used because of the name, smoothness, is
incomplete and the values just a little offensive !


 David, I tried to search for images of the Kennedy Development Rd in
 Queensland but none of the images I got would be tagged as
 tracktype=grade5. Do you have any example or any similar picture for
 what you've experienced? Or maybe a coordinate that we can have a peek
 at on Street View (either Google's or OpenStreetView)?


The northern sections of the Kennedy are in excellent condition, the
'interesting' bits are between the junction of the Gregory Dev Rd and,
further south, the town of Hughenden. Street View does not go there.
And, quite stupidly, we did not stop to take any photos. The road it
self is very wide, mainly because the big trucks just swing wider when
they come to sections that worry even them. That width is a blessing as
you can get out of the way of one of those trucks when you see it
approach. Its usually necessary to stop for awhile when you do encounter
a big truck, the dust they put in the air makes driving quite unsafe.

From what I understand, you have roads in similar condition in your part
of the world ?

David




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread vali

Hi

I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but after
reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed are almost
like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here are old (some of
them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance is almost none.

I have some pics to show what I am talking about:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg

These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great, but the
track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track over a stone
bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be eroded by rain.
Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in the wiki)

http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg
http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg

These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller and
can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter. tracktype?
surface?

http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg
http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg

This kind of track is often found in places with long-time settlements, are
centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They tend to be very narrow
and twisted. The surface on some of them is smooth (not the one in the pic)
and could be made from earth, rocks or a varied mixture of both but I
didn't see any of them with just gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too
wide and, most important, their turning radius is too big. The only
suitable motor vehicles there are small tractors or motorbikes.

Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths as the
borders start to decay into the track in some areas.
Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg

This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard and
smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account the
surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe?

Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the drivability
of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can use this kind of
track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough sometimes.

Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the list,
but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the things I
plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time tracks are
widely used.


2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:

 David Bannon wrote:
 Should I use this road or not ?
  tracktype= does claim to use that approach

 It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
 documenting. The part about how well maintained
 on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
 the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
 wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about
 the most influential attribute of the road construction
 (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes),
 of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the
 conditions road users see on any ways not up to
 the highway standards of the present day.

 So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only
 to soft materials only. The connection to maintained
 is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a
 good approximation of the maintenance, but there can
 be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?)
 maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on
 exposed solid rock is hard materials only even if nobody
 ever raised a finger to build the way.

 A user can deduce expectations from the combination
 of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and
 local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=*
 if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users.

 There can not be anything beyond soft materials only,
 that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively used
 the tag to describe their assessment of should i use or
 not, the meaning of the tag has diverged from the
 use in other regions, and we'll never know which one
 was meant. (Luckily, there's seldom any major difference
 - it's probably be the rare extreme cases that can be in
 disagreement.)

 If mappers want to tag a subjective should i use it,
 it should be some other tag if the hard/soft materials
 scale doesn't suit them. But for which road user?

 --
 Alv
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread David Bannon


Vali, great contribution to the discussion.

The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !

tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
for bike or walkers. 

I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are
excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word
smoothness and the assigned values. Sigh

Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its
called tagging for renderers, punishable by death but happens all the
time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=.  Some evil people
consider this fact when choosing which tag to use. 

Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ?  If
promoted it could be whats needed ?

David


On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote:
 Hi
 
 
 
 I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but
 after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed
 are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here
 are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance
 is almost none.
 
 
 I have some pics to show what I am talking about:
 
 http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
 http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
 
 
 These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great,
 but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track
 over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be
 eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in
 the wiki)
 
 http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg
 http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
 
 
 These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller
 and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter.
 tracktype? surface?
 
 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg
 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg
 
 
 This kind of track is often found in places with long-time
 settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They
 tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is
 smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or
 a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just
 gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important,
 their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles
 there are small tractors or motorbikes.
 
 
 Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths
 as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas.
 
 Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time.
 
 http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg
 
 
 This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard
 and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account
 the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe?
 
 
 Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the
 drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can
 use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough
 sometimes.
 
 
 Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the
 list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the
 things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time
 tracks are widely used.
 
 
 
 2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
 David Bannon wrote:
 Should I use this road or not ?
  tracktype= does claim to use that approach
 
 
 It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
 documenting. The part about how well maintained
 on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
 the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
 wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about
 the most influential attribute of the road construction
 (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes),
 of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the
 conditions road users see on any ways not up to
 the highway standards of the present day.
 
 So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only
 to soft materials only. The connection to maintained
 is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a
 good approximation of the maintenance, but there can
 be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?)
 maintain a road made of soft sand only, but a track on
 exposed solid rock is hard materials only even if nobody
 ever raised a finger to build the way.
 
 A user can deduce expectations from the combination
 of surface=*, tracktype=*, their vehicle, season, and
 local weather - and in some cases, even smoothness=*
 if the rocks, roots and potholes prevent some users.
 
 There can not be anything beyond soft materials only,
 that's quicksand. If many mappers have actively

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread vali

Thanks David

I don't like smoothness values either.

Problem is this key does't take in account other things that can prevent
certain type of vehicles from using that type of track. I put an example in
the last pic with a track with good surface but everything else is not so
good.

At first I saw tracktype something like a general state of the track but
I see it is not. I am glad I didn't tag any of those tracks with it.



2014-03-20 23:36 GMT+01:00 David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:


 Vali, great contribution to the discussion.

 The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
 a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !

 tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
 for bike or walkers.

 I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are
 excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word
 smoothness and the assigned values. Sigh

 Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its
 called tagging for renderers, punishable by death but happens all the
 time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=.  Some evil people
 consider this fact when choosing which tag to use.

 Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ?  If
 promoted it could be whats needed ?

 David


 On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote:
  Hi
 
 
 
  I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but
  after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed
  are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here
  are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance
  is almost none.
 
 
  I have some pics to show what I am talking about:
 
  http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
  http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
 
 
  These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great,
  but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track
  over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be
  eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in
  the wiki)
 
  http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg
  http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
 
 
  These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller
  and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter.
  tracktype? surface?
 
  http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg
  http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg
 
 
  This kind of track is often found in places with long-time
  settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They
  tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is
  smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or
  a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just
  gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important,
  their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles
  there are small tractors or motorbikes.
 
 
  Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths
  as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas.
 
  Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time.
 
  http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg
 
 
  This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard
  and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account
  the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe?
 
 
  Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the
  drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can
  use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough
  sometimes.
 
 
  Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the
  list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the
  things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time
  tracks are widely used.
 
 
 
  2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
  David Bannon wrote:
  Should I use this road or not ?
   tracktype= does claim to use that approach
 
 
  It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
  documenting. The part about how well maintained
  on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
  the values. There is a connection, but tracktype
  wasn't meant to be about usable or not, but about
  the most influential attribute of the road construction
  (or lack of, among the easily observable attributes),
  of all the attributes that are involved in shaping the
  conditions road users see on any ways not up to
  the highway standards of the present day.
 
  So it's a description of a scale from hard materials only
  to soft materials only. The connection to maintained
  is variable and complex, but usually the grade is also a
  good approximation of the maintenance, but there can
  be, and there are, exceptions. One does not usually(?)
  maintain

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread Dave Swarthout

Vali, those are some of the nastiest tracks I've ever seen. No ordinary car
is going to be traversing those and even most 4WD will be forced to drive
very slowly in order to avoid the bigger, protruding rocks. As for
tracktype, there is no grade type to describe them unless we extend the
grade scheme to 6 or 7 or beyond, as many suggested, or alternatively,
create new tags 4WD_only=yes/no, and possibly HC_4WD_only=yes/no. It's also
obvious that surface of rocky needs to be dealt with somehow. Most of
these have a very horrible surface. Setting aside the fact that maxspeed
refers to _legal_ maximums, I would be tempted to add a maxspeed=5 or lower
as well to help routers make decisions.

I have incorrectly used maxspeed in the past to suggest the suitability of
a road for travel. I have also used surface_condition, as in
surface_condition=Rough_less_than_40kph in the past. There were many
examples of this usage in Taginfo and I was reluctant to use tracktype to
describe a highway when I first started mapping.

What about some sort of speed tag, a new one, perhaps trackspeed or
comfortable_speed?





On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:36 AM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.netwrote:


 Vali, great contribution to the discussion.

 The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
 a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !

 tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
 for bike or walkers.

 I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are
 excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word
 smoothness and the assigned values. Sigh

 Now, you can be very very evil and consider rendering when tagging. Its
 called tagging for renderers, punishable by death but happens all the
 time. I have never seen a map that shows smoothness=.  Some evil people
 consider this fact when choosing which tag to use.

 Maybe, folks, we should take more notice of the smoothness= tag ?  If
 promoted it could be whats needed ?

 David


 On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 22:26 +0100, vali wrote:
  Hi
 
 
 
  I tried to figure out how to tag these tracks the right way but
  after reading the wiki and this thread it seems the tracks discussed
  are almost like gravel roads or tracks in farmlands. Most tracks here
  are old (some of them centuries old), very twisty and the maintenance
  is almost none.
 
 
  I have some pics to show what I am talking about:
 
  http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
  http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
 
 
  These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1. The first pic is not great,
  but the track is carved in the stone. The second one is just a track
  over a stone bed. Stones will not move under a heavy vehicle nor be
  eroded by rain. Surface tag should be surface=rock (wich is missing in
  the wiki)
 
  http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg
  http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
 
 
  These are different from the two before because the rocks are smaller
  and can get loose. Rock size can be from fist-size to a meter.
  tracktype? surface?
 
  http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg
  http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg
 
 
  This kind of track is often found in places with long-time
  settlements, are centuries old and were made by bullock carts. They
  tend to be very narrow and twisted. The surface on some of them is
  smooth (not the one in the pic) and could be made from earth, rocks or
  a varied mixture of both but I didn't see any of them with just
  gravel. 4x4 can't get there: they are too wide and, most important,
  their turning radius is too big. The only suitable motor vehicles
  there are small tractors or motorbikes.
 
 
  Because of rural depopulation this kind of tracks are becoming paths
  as the borders start to decay into the track in some areas.
 
  Tracktype? surface is earth most of the time.
 
  http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg
 
 
  This one is very typical too. The surface is compacted earth. Is hard
  and smooth enough to use a normal car there if we only take in account
  the surface. Tracktype 2 o 3 maybe?
 
 
  Which I try to say here is there should be a way to tag the
  drivability of the track itself to answer: which kind of vehicle can
  use this kind of track?. Describing the surface alone is not enough
  sometimes.
 
 
  Bear with me since I am new to OSM in general and even more in the
  list, but I am very insterested in this topic in particular since the
  things I plan to map are mostly hiking routes and a lot of the time
  tracks are widely used.
 
 
 
  2014-03-20 18:44 GMT+01:00 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi:
  David Bannon wrote:
  Should I use this road or not ?
   tracktype= does claim to use that approach
 
 
  It's a shame that we, the community, don't excel at
  documenting. The part about how well maintained
  on the Key:tracktype page was added later after
  the values. There is a connection, but tracktype

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com:

 I have some pics to show what I am talking about:

 http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
 http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg

 These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1.



to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like
tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they
were wide enough)



http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg


- path


http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg


grade5




 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg



path or tracktype=grade4 or 5



 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg




- path






 http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg



tracktype 3 probably


thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the
hills, in remote areas).
You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a
pickup or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but
often there is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate,
or maybe footway).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-20 Thread Dave Swarthout

I generally agree with Martin's assessment. None of these tracks is all
that suitable for getting from one place to another in any reasonable
amount of time, if ever. The photos point out quite well the limitations of
the tracktype definitions.


On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
 wrote:




 2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com:

 I have some pics to show what I am talking about:

 http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
 http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg

 These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1.



 to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like
 tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they
 were wide enough)



 http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg


 - path


 http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg


 grade5




 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg



 path or tracktype=grade4 or 5



 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg




 - path






 http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg



 tracktype 3 probably


 thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the
 hills, in remote areas).
 You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a
 pickup or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but
 often there is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate,
 or maybe footway).

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

I believe I understand exactly what you mean, David, and I fully
agree. We could start by advising people to use the values for
smoothness in their descriptions. If so many people agree that the
current values are inappropriate, let's write a proposal for the new
values, get it approved (should be easy) and recommend against using
the old (current) values.

Even if we do so, I think both tags are necessary to assess beforehand
how safe it is to pass, or how fun it would be (if that's what you're
seeking). So you can use both to describe different aspects of the
surface. (I kinda think you want to pursue a single tag - either
smoothness or track, but not both -, that may be an impossible task
considering all the discussions we've had so far. I tried to propose
that actually, and there was no interest.)

Regarding what Vali said, I would have tagged most of the examples as
paths. But I'm biased by the fact that, in Brazil, we have agreed to
use highway=track only when the way is wide enough for a car to get
through. I understand that the distinction between path and track is a
much bigger, sort of unresolved issue.

Below is how I would have tagged each of Vali's examples. (I usually
don't add mtb:scale and sac_scale on roads, but do on tracks and
paths.) I'll borrow the opportunity to mention how my proposal to the
OSRM (car profile) would have treated these cases (tell me your
suggestions), listing two factors it tries to guess: a maximum safe
speed, and a level of effort (for which 1 means no effort, 2 means
you'd rather choose a way 2x as long if its surface was very smooth,
solid and well maintained). Tell me what you think:

http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
highway=path + smoothness=off_road_wheels + tracktype=grade2 +
mtb:scale=3 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky
* Expected safe speed (if wide as track): ~4kmph, limited by smoothness.
* Effort level: 15, set by smoothness.

Rationale: it's not wide enough for a car, so it's not a track. If it
were, it would need to be an off road vehicle (just high clearance
won't do if I'm aiming at safety). The material is not entirely
solid, not an even mixture, it's in between, so grade2.

http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg
highway=path + smoothness=off_road_wheels + tracktype=grade2 +
mtb:scale=2 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky

http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg
highway=track + smoothness=high_clearance + tracktype=grade2 +
mtb:scale=1 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky
* Expected safe speed: ~10kmph, limited by smoothness.
* Effort level: 7, set by smoothness.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
highway=track + smoothness=high_clearance + tracktype=grade2 +
mtb:scale=2 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=rocky

http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg
highway=path + smoothness=robust_wheels + tracktype=grade4 +
mtb:scale=0 + sac_scale=hiking + surface=earth
* Expected safe speed (if wide as track): ~20kmph, limited by
tracktype and smoothness (both yield the same limit).
* Effort level: 4, set by smoothness. (Tracktype is almost the main
factor, with an effort level of 3.)

http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg
highway=path + smoothness=robust_wheels + tracktype=grade4 +
mtb:scale=1 + sac_scale=mountain_hiking + surface=earth

http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg
highway=path + smoothness=robust_wheels + tracktype=grade4 +
mtb:scale=0 + sac_scale=hiking + surface=earth

The first case is actually a dillemma I had for the OSRM proposal. I
did consider smoothness=off_road_wheels as routable for an average car
hoping this way I wouldn't derange many people by making their tracks
suddenly inaccessible in OSRM. I'm not sure about this decision, maybe
the speed should be even lower or the effort much higher to avoid them
more, or maybe they shouldn't be routable at all for an average car.

Another note: the tagging I did above is following the text in the
wiki, but the pictures for smoothness at the bad end of the scale
seem out of sync. I think a high clearance vehicle can go through a
way as in the image for off_road_wheels
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/4f/Jena_Trackexample_profile.jpg),
that an off road vehicle can go through a way as in the image for
specialized_off_road_wheels
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Mountain-track5.jpg). I also
think that a tank or an ATV (specialized_off_road_wheels) can go
through impassable
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/1/16/Smoothness_impassable.JPG).

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:36 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:

 Vali, great contribution to the discussion.

 The three photos sort of span the things we are talking about, confused
 a little by the fact that they don't really suit 'cars' !

 tracktype= is really focused on [cars, suv, 4x4, trucks] but useful info
 for bike or walkers.

 I sort of think 'smoothness=' is your best tag. Its descriptions are
 excellent, as I have mentioned, I have issues about the word
 smoothness and the assigned values.

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
grade5? In the wiki: Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard
materials, uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, with surface of
soil/sand/grass.

So if you guys agree that this is grade5 (or worse), what's written in
the wiki is far from accurate.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:



 2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com:

 I have some pics to show what I am talking about:

 http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
 http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg

 These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1.



 to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like
 tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they
 were wide enough)



 http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg


 - path


 http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg


 grade5




 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg



 path or tracktype=grade4 or 5



 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg




 - path






 http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg



 tracktype 3 probably


 thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the
 hills, in remote areas).
 You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a pickup
 or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but often there
 is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate, or maybe
 footway).

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

But at least now I know I need to review my values more
pessimistically. (Which is what I wanted after all.)

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:27 PM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg
 grade5? In the wiki: Almost always an unpaved track lacking hard
 materials, uncompacted, subtle on the landscape, with surface of
 soil/sand/grass.

 So if you guys agree that this is grade5 (or worse), what's written in
 the wiki is far from accurate.

 On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:



 2014-03-20 22:26 GMT+01:00 vali val...@gmail.com:

 I have some pics to show what I am talking about:

 http://oi59.tinypic.com/33fala8.jpg
 http://oi60.tinypic.com/1zmmrlt.jpg

 These should be trackytpe 2 or maybe 1.



 to me the first one looks like highway path and the second one like
 tracktype grade 4 or 5 (I've use these values for similar tracks when they
 were wide enough)



 http://oi58.tinypic.com/t7iiht.jpg


 - path


 http://oi61.tinypic.com/6ozcdw.jpg


 grade5




 http://oi59.tinypic.com/4htmag.jpg



 path or tracktype=grade4 or 5



 http://oi62.tinypic.com/11v5z13.jpg




 - path






 http://oi60.tinypic.com/15zgldc.jpg



 tracktype 3 probably


 thanks for these pictures, this is what I encounter here as well (in the
 hills, in remote areas).
 You shouldn't generally take them with a car or suv, but maybe with a pickup
 or tractor you could use them if your tyres are big enough (but often there
 is not much space at the corners, so path is more appropriate, or maybe
 footway).

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




 --
 Fernando Trebien
 +55 (51) 9962-5409

 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
 The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-19 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



 Am 18/mar/2014 um 23:36 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
 
 Please lets think of tracktype= as -
 
 1. OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well looked after.


grade1 is mostly asphalted, (and comprises also heavily
compacted hardcore with similar characteristics).

Please note that the track type scale goes from 1 to 5, there is no such thing 
as a grade6

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-19 Thread Fernando Trebien

I think you mean that we should redefine the meaning of the values of
the tracktype tag. I'm wondering if that's good because the text has
been essentially stable since december 2011, when the article got its
head paragraphs. Descriptions of tag values have been essentially the
same since 2008, when the article was created. They've been only
slightly modified to reflect different degrees of compaction. That's
simply a descriptive refinement to me. Check it out:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Atracktypediff=971383oldid=71635

A majority of users not following the wiki could be a good reason to
change the definition, but did you notice anything like that in
practice, perhaps in Australia?

The descriptions you provide are actually very informative to me as
I'm trying to provide OSRM with reasonable default speeds for those
tags. I'd like to know:
- why would you need an SUV for grade6: is it too bumpy, or too likely
to bog, or either?
- can you travel through grade8 at all? with which kind of vehicle? is
it related to traction on loose surface, or is it related to clearance
and wheel size required to cross over an irregular terrain?

In a way, I think your descriptions are more subjective than what we
have in the wiki today for tracktype. Say grade4:
- wiki: Mostly soft. Almost always an unpaved track prominently with
soil/sand/grass, but with some hard materials, or compressed materials
mixed in.
- you: Sort of road you may prefer to go around if you can.

Why would one prefer to go around?, I wonder. If we're mapping what's
on the ground, we need a a clear and objective reason (something you
can see, test or measure) to prefer to go around. If we map that
reason, then applications can decide if that reason is significant for
their particular situation. The application could be calculating a
route for an SUV or for a motorcycle, there are many reasons with
totally different consequences for these vehicles, such as specific
surface shapes, material densities, and degree of slipperiness.

For grade1, you mention OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well
looked after. That's probably the same as smoothness=good/excellent.
Some of your other definitions seem to be overlapping with the
definition of smoothness too (when you mention holes, something
that will worry a city driver, requires considerable care), whereas
the current text in the wiki mostly doesn't (any combination of the
two tags is possible). If we can't eliminate one of the tags, then
it's best if they are as independent from each other as possible.

I'm all in favour of thinking about risky situations that should be
mapped and accounted for in apps (such as Mapnik/Carto and OsmAnd and
OSRM and MapQuest's and all the others). I'm wondering if you find
smoothness inadequate for what you want to accomplish, and why.
(Here's a good one, but the only one I know of:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Accepted_features/Smoothness#Renaming_current_values)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:36 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:

Yes Dave (Swarthout), I share your views here. I'd rather we looked at a
rating that reflected how well maintained and usable the road is likely
to be. That is what most road users want to know. Should I use this
road or not ?

tracktype= does claim to use that approach and that why its so popular.
Lets not move it into a purely descriptive model by defining the degree
of sand, bog, pot holes, slipperyness, steepness, angle, corrigations
etc ! If we take away that desirable subjectivness (there, I said it!)
from tracktype= people will have to go off and invent yet another tag
that says what they want and says what the map user wants.

Please lets think of tracktype= as -

1. OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well looked after.

2. Bit dodgy but almost any car (etc) will be fine if you slow down.

3. Likely to have holes, bogs, sand or something that will worry a city
driver.

4. Sort of road you may prefer to go around if you can.

5. Requires considerable care, watch for the unexpected.

And yes Dave, I am a big fan of extra grades to tracktype=

6. You probably should consider a SUV/4wd but experience will do.

7. A reasonable 4wd is probably required.

8. This is silly, a heavily modified 4wd is necessary. Take a film crew.

All right, just a bit tongue in cheek but you see what I mean.

David

On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:14 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a
surface. I still would prefer a term that better characterizes what
Fernando said above: To me, the idea [of] a firm/soft mixture seems
closely related to how well maintained the track/road is, as
mixtures that are not so durable/steady/firm quickly wear down and
look 'poorly maintained'.

A poorly maintained road, or one that is not well engineered, or one
composed of loose, uncompacted materials will be much less durable
than

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-19 Thread Fernando Trebien

I think that adding the idea of risk of degradation is very
enriching to the article.

Just to test the concept: if tracktype means durability/endurance more
than firmness, what tracktype would you (and others) expect to see
alongside with surface=stone?

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com wrote:
 Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a surface.
 I still would prefer a term that better characterizes what Fernando said
 above: To me, the idea [of] a firm/soft mixture seems closely related to
 how well maintained the track/road is, as mixtures that are not so
 durable/steady/firm quickly wear down and look 'poorly maintained'.

 A poorly maintained road, or one that is not well engineered, or one
 composed of loose, uncompacted materials will be much less durable than one
 that has those characteristics. Consequently, I still think durability fits
 the bill. I hesitate to bring this up but the discussion about
 trafficability tried to rationalize the relationship between a highway's
 surface, hardness, composition and smoothness and ran into similar problems
 (David Bannon?)

 FWIW, borrowing again from Fernando above I would reword the definitions as
 so:

 grade1: heavily compacted hardcore
 grade1: [Usually paved. If unpaved then a heavily compacted mixture of
 materials (gravel, sand, earth, clay) that provide a fairly smooth, durable
 and relatively weather-resistant surface.]

 grade2: unpaved (...) surface of gravel [a hard material] mixed with
 varying amount of [soft materials] sand, silt and clay
 grade2: [Unpaved (...) surface of gravel mixed with a varying amount of
 other materials and lightly compacted or rolled to provide a good surface.
 Less durable or weather resistant than a grade1 track.]

 grade3: even mixture of hard and soft materials
 grade3 [Almost always an unpaved dirt road. A mixture of uncompacted hard
 and soft materials providing a reasonable surface. Subject to moderate
 degradation in bad weather. ]
 grade4: prominently with soil/sand/grass [soft materials], but with some
 hard materials
 grade4: [A rougher unpaved dirt road with a mostly soft surface, poorly
 maintained and not very durable. Rain and other bad weather degrade this
 type of track rapidly.]
 grade5: lacking hard materials
 grade5: [A very rough unpaved track composed of loose, uncompacted, soft
 materials often having a surface of grass and dirt, or, in wet weather, mud.
 Not very durable -- easily eroded.]

 Other OSMers have amended this list to include grade6 and even grade7 for
 tracks passable by 4WD or ATV only. What about those?



 On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Firmness sounds good to me:
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firmness

 I know that soundness means the same but has some additional
 meanings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soundness),
 firmness is more specific.

 On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
 
 
 
  On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Fernando Trebien
  fernando.treb...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
   Replacing 'stiffness'
  with something else is absolutely fine with me.
 
 
 
  What about firmness? soundness?
 
 
  Javbw
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 



 --
 Fernando Trebien
 +55 (51) 9962-5409

 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
 The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




 --
 Dave Swarthout
 Homer, Alaska
 Chiang Mai, Thailand
 Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-19 Thread Dave Swarthout

I just read (almost) the entire thread about smoothness Fernando mentioned
here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Accepted_features/Smoothness#Renaming_current_valuesand
I must say, it looks like an uphill battle to make substantial changes
in any definition of a road's usability for routing purposes. I reckon we
all agree that several tags are necessary to fully characterize a highway.
Furthermore, the choice of any of those tags will require some degree of
subjective assessment by the mapper — that's because people are different,
road conditions vary by country, even to the point of saying a primary
highway paved with asphalt in the U.S. is generally superior to the same
sort of road here in Thailand. Can smoothness be excellent in both cases
when the best highways in the U.S. are smooth as glass while the Thai
counterparts are slightly less than that? (More entirely subjective
wanderings can follow here...) It all depends on who's talking and what
their experiences are in their own locality.

IMO, we must use all the tags we've been discussing to describe a given
highway whenever possible. The definitions for tracktype grades might be
fine tuned to include the concept of durability, especially as regards
weather resistance, and it should be somehow said up front that the various
grades represent a scale of usability by wheeled vehicles with grade1 at
the top. Maybe that's obvious but it should be said nevertheless. All these
(subjectively determined) characteristics occupy positions on a continuum —
there is no right choice.

It might also simplify things if we were to somehow rate
their usability for bicycles and roller blades separately or at least with
additional tags. Although I like the smoothness
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness#Smoothnessdefinitions
using wheels as a guide trying to define usability for such a wide range of
purposes with the same set of tags is perhaps expecting too much. Using an
mtb_scale or sac_scale tag could extend the characterization when needed as
the examples indicate.

Getting back to your question. I would say, it all depends. When I first
read it, I thought of a stone road, sort of like a walkway, that is, flat,
smooth stones set in a sand base. Such a track might be very smooth. But
if you're referring to crushed stone (like railroad ballast) the
situation could be quite different. We need more detailed information so we
can employ more tags in such situations. That said, I would not know how to
tag a stone road like I just described. While surface=stone and
smoothness=good would work, none of the tracktypes fit well. If you're
describing a road that runs over a stretch of natural stone, say in a
mountain pass, then tracktype comes into play again.

I assume what we're looking for is a way to assign an overall value to the
highway so a routing engine can make correct decisions. In looking at our
standard surface tags for highways, I'm thinking now that they don't
actually tell us much. The tags surface=asphalt, surface=concrete,
surface=paved all bring certain characteristics to my mind, different ones
to yours possibly, but they are actually useless for making routing
decisions.

It appears to me then that we should be looking for is a way to standardize
the smoothness and tracktype tags so a combined numerical value can be
manipulated within a routing algorithm. Let's forget about surface
composition and concentrate on those other tags...

I don't know where to go from here. Anyone else?

Cheers,
AlaskaDave

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

I think that adding the idea of risk of degradation is very
enriching to the article.

Just to test the concept: if tracktype means durability/endurance more
than firmness, what tracktype would you (and others) expect to see
alongside with surface=stone?

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a
surface.
I still would prefer a term that better characterizes what Fernando said
above: To me, the idea [of] a firm/soft mixture seems closely related to
how well maintained the track/road is, as mixtures that are not so
durable/steady/firm quickly wear down and look 'poorly maintained'.

A poorly maintained road, or one that is not well engineered, or one
composed of loose, uncompacted materials will be much less durable than
one
that has those characteristics. Consequently, I still think durability
fits
the bill. I hesitate to bring this up but the discussion about
trafficability tried to rationalize the relationship between a highway's
surface, hardness, composition and smoothness and ran into similar
problems
(David Bannon?)

FWIW, borrowing again from Fernando above I would reword the definitions
as
so:

grade1: heavily compacted hardcore
grade1: [Usually paved. If unpaved then a heavily compacted mixture

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-19 Thread Fernando Trebien

Mapping has a conflict: we want to be precise enough to make a useful
map (more tags), but we also want to map quickly (less tags).
Describing the surface probably is one of those problems that lies
near the middle of these opposing goals, and finding the perfect
balance is the challenge. For now, a recommendation of two tags may
not seem ideal (as would a single tag) to the mapper, but it could be
much worse.

I'm entirely convinced of several things you mentioned:
- We must use all the tags we've been discussing to describe a given
highway whenever possible
- In looking at our standard surface tags for highways, I'm
thinking now that they don't actually tell us much

Let's forget about surface composition and concentrate on those other
tags. My view on this is that mappers who care about routing would be
looking primarily at tracktype and smoothness (hopefully both, but
this may change per mapper and per region). But if they're going
through that trouble, it is a good opportunity to also provide the
surface tag as well, since they'll probably be looking at the surface.
(The wiki can suggest that to the mapper.)

The surface tag as defined today would be important:
- for studies on urban planning
- as a rough guess in routing when both tracktype and smoothness are missing

I don't see any other scenarios where the surface tag would be useful
for applications today.

The tags surface=asphalt, surface=concrete, surface=paved all bring
certain characteristics to my mind, different ones to yours possibly
[not really] but they are actually useless for making routing
decisions. [mostly true]

I would change useless with unreliable, but more so on other
values of surface (such as surface=dirt). Asphalt and concrete almost
always imply smoothness=excellent in developed countries, and I would
say the same is valid for Brazil, even if we have one of the worst
road infrastructures in the world (not so evident if you're in the
South, much more evident going to the countryside towards the Amazon
rainforest). Excellent smoothness is, after all, one of the goals of
any honest road construction project. Here we expect to be warned by
friends and/or the media when the pavement has a problem. We surely
would expect to be warned by a digital system that contained such
information (it is important and very unpredictable). OTOH,
surface=paved really is almost completely unreliable, no matter where
you are on the planet. It could mean we have paving stones,
cobblestones (not all countries though), or (as I remember somebody
mentioning here) even surface=compacted. Those would hardly ever
present smoothness=excellent (smooth for thin rollers, as the wiki
describes it), but they could vary from smoothness=bad to
smoothness=good most times, and that's a wide range. Material
firmness/durability would also vary quite a lot for paved, but almost
never for asphalt and concrete (which should be quite durable even
with potholes, which often just implies that nobody is fixing the
surface regularly; one thing is its current state, another is its rate
of decay).

Wondering if any country would be doing worse than Brazil in terms of
road infrastructure, I found this:
http://global.umich.edu/2014/02/worlds-most-dangerous-roads-are-in-africa-middle-east-latin-america/

And then I went searching for images of roads in these countries. Most
of the roads looked just fine (solid and smooth). The worst ones I
found:
- in Eritrea: 
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/ILEZumn6Zhqo/s/900/900/ERITREA-00085-BC3.jpg
- in Mongolia: 
http://www.mongolia-travel-guide.com/image-files/mrm-mongolia-main-road.jpg
- in Suriname (just like some of Brazil's worst roads):
http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/tstories/duval/images/037%20IMG_3494.jpg
- in Angola: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2434/3897036578_12207239a3_o.jpg
- in Angola again: http://i37.tinypic.com/r74ro0.jpg
- somewhere between Angola and Namibia:
http://www.ecosystema.ru/08nature/world/64ang/01.jpg
- in Congo: 
http://www.orderofmalta.int/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Congo-new-road-MI-small.jpg
- in Congo again:
http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00539/Road-1_jpg_539581gm-b.jpg

(I learned yet another aspect of surface: quality of painted markings.
It seems to be a problem in Thailand, and it also is in Brazil in many
places. Should this ever affect routing decisions somehow? Should this
be mapped one day?)

How they compare to Brazil:
- typical road: http://www.halcrow.com/Global/Images/highways/brazil_roads_1.jpg
- how bad it can get sometimes (varies by region):
http://codigolivre.net/wp-content/uploads/buracos-estrada.jpg

Even though the former is below developed world standards, I don't
think a person from such countries would rate it worse than
smoothness=good. And so wouldn't a Brazilian person, who wouldn't rate
it excellent either, due to the soft patches.

I'm quite positive people would also rate the latter with
smoothness=bad/robust_wheels or

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-18 Thread David Bannon



Yes Dave (Swarthout), I share your views here. I'd rather we looked at a
rating that reflected how well maintained and usable the road is likely
to be. That is what most road users want to know. Should I use this
road or not ?

tracktype= does claim to use that approach and that why its so popular.
Lets not move it into a purely descriptive model by defining the degree
of sand, bog, pot holes, slipperyness, steepness, angle, corrigations
etc ! If we take away that desirable subjectivness (there, I said it!)
from tracktype= people will have to go off and invent yet another tag
that says what they want and says what the map user wants. 

Please lets think of tracktype= as -

1. OK, its unsealed but smooth, level, well looked after.

2. Bit dodgy but almost any car (etc) will be fine if you slow down.

3. Likely to have holes, bogs, sand or something that will worry a city
driver.

4. Sort of road you may prefer to go around if you can.

5. Requires considerable care, watch for the unexpected.

And yes Dave, I am a big fan of extra grades to tracktype=

6. You probably should consider a SUV/4wd but experience will do.

7. A reasonable 4wd is probably required.

8. This is silly, a heavily modified 4wd is necessary. Take a film crew.

All right, just a bit tongue in cheek but you see what I mean.

David


On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 12:14 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
 Yes, I agree firmness works better than stiffness for describing a
 surface. I still would prefer a term that better characterizes what
 Fernando said above: To me, the idea [of] a firm/soft mixture seems
 closely related to how well maintained the track/road is, as
 mixtures that are not so durable/steady/firm quickly wear down and
 look 'poorly maintained'.
 
 
 A poorly maintained road, or one that is not well engineered, or one
 composed of loose, uncompacted materials will be much less durable
 than one that has those characteristics. Consequently, I still think
 durability fits the bill. I hesitate to bring this up but the
 discussion about trafficability tried to rationalize the relationship
 between a highway's surface, hardness, composition and smoothness and
 ran into similar problems (David Bannon?)
 
 
 FWIW, borrowing again from Fernando above I would reword the
 definitions as so:
 
 
 grade1: heavily compacted hardcore
 grade1: [Usually paved. If unpaved then a heavily compacted mixture of
 materials (gravel, sand, earth, clay) that provide a fairly smooth,
 durable and relatively weather-resistant surface.]
 grade2: unpaved (...) surface of gravel [a hard material] mixed with
 varying amount of [soft materials] sand, silt and clay
 grade2: [Unpaved (...) surface of gravel mixed with a varying amount
 of other materials and lightly compacted or rolled to provide a good
 surface. Less durable or weather resistant than a grade1 track.]
 grade3: even mixture of hard and soft materials
 grade3 [Almost always an unpaved dirt road. A mixture of uncompacted
 hard and soft materials providing a reasonable surface. Subject to
 moderate degradation in bad weather. ]
 grade4: prominently with soil/sand/grass [soft materials], but
 with some hard materials
 grade4: [A rougher unpaved dirt road with a mostly soft surface,
 poorly maintained and not very durable. Rain and other bad weather
 degrade this type of track rapidly.]
 grade5: lacking hard materials
 grade5: [A very rough unpaved track composed of loose, uncompacted,
 soft materials often having a surface of grass and dirt, or, in wet
 weather, mud. Not very durable — easily eroded.]
 
 
 Other OSMers have amended this list to include grade6 and even grade7
 for tracks passable by 4WD or ATV only. What about those?
 
 
 
 
 On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Firmness sounds good to me:
 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firmness
 
 I know that soundness means the same but has some additional
 meanings
 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soundness),
 firmness is more specific.
 
 On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
 
 
 
  On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com
  wrote:
 
   Replacing 'stiffness'
  with something else is absolutely fine with me.
 
 
 
  What about firmness? soundness?
 
 
  Javbw
 
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 
 --
 Fernando Trebien
 +55 (51) 9962-5409
 
 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18
 months. (Moore's law)
 The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread David Bannon

On Sun, 2014-03-16 at 22:11 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:

Do you all agree with these wiki edits?

1. Yes, almost. Not too happy with the term 'stiffness'. Maybe just remove the
term 'stiffness' ?

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes, I guess so ...

However, while a good job Fernando, I still think we are missing the
real issue here. What people and routing engines want to know is how
usable a road is. For most people and most situations, people want to
know if they will be OK using it in their [4x4, SUV, Conventional car,
silly car] given their [extensive..zero] rough road experience. However,
this approach is seen as 'subjective', a serious crime ...

Sigh...

David

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Atracktypediff=1002090oldid=992679

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Atracktypediff=1002096oldid=971383

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asmoothnessdiff=1002098oldid=905282

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asurfacediff=1002099oldid=970317

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
(regardless of material)

I have always more thought of it how much it was constructed, while
tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
constructed at all) and the rest in between. Generally a tracktype=grade1
should be easily navigable by bike or foot also after days of rain while
for
grade2 you would hope so and grade3 is not clear, 4 and 5 probably not. In
the end it is a generalized hierarchical system that comprises several
single characteristics to come to a summarizing tag value (and the single
characteristics are not documented and may vary on individual basis).
Somehow it still works as you can compare the values with other tracks in
the same area.

Hm I think that someone on a city bike (not on a mountain bike) would
find tracktype=grade2 somewhat inconvenient, but still usable indeed.

Anyway, I'm making these questions because thinking of degree of
compaction (same as hardness maybe) makes tracktype essentially
independent from both smoothness and surface tags. You can then guess
more accurately things such as expected speed, comfort level, draft
forces, and the risk of getting bogged.

One question: do you think that an almost flat natural rock path
should be tracktype=grade1 (because it's closer to compacted) or
tracktype=grade5 (because it's not constructed)?

- smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material)

yes. in other words how smooth or even the surface is.

- surface more closely represents the material structure, usually
regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions)

yes, surface is a mixture of the ~material (roughly classified) and in some
cases the way of application / the overall structure (e.g. cobblestones).

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread David Bannon

Good on you Dave, I do like a good rant !

On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 10:47 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:


 Begin rantIMO tracktype should describe the physical
 characteristics of a track, not a highway, and it should have nothing
 to do with how well maintained it is. 

Great in an ideal world Dave. However, there are many highways in the
world that are also 'tracks'.

Recognising this, the OSM Lords have given us highway= tags to describe
the purpose of a road. And tracktype= to describe the condition. Many
cases, the tracktype= is not needed as its condition matches its
purpose. But in situations where that is not the case, life threatening
situations arise when a map user is not appropriately warned. 

I agree tracktype may not be ideal but its better that the rest and I
think its too late to dream up a new one.

 .. those surfaces have an additional important characteristic
 called smoothness. 

'smoothness=' is not really appropriate as there are many, many roads
that have issues beyond smoothness. I have seen tracks that appeared
beautifully smooth but were beyond my ability !

 How a highway ever got a tracktype tag is beyond me and seems a big
 mistake. 

That was part of the original definition of tracktype= when it was
approved.

  As far as smoothness is concerned, many have derided it as being
 too subjective. 

Look, lets be honest, just about anything in this world except the
integer series has some subjective aspect. Lets get over it !
 

  say, particularly regarding surface stiffness, IMO the word

Yes, Dave, I agree, Fernando's use of the word 'stiffness' is a bit
dodgy. But thats a 'subjective' opinion.

  Perhaps soundness, permanence, or better yet, durability. 
No, I really think this is about how usable a road is given a set of
vehicle and driver experience. We, on the AU mailing list discussed
words like 'trafficability' and, from memory, some even worse ones !

But I do want a good solution and I'll agree to an OK one if its all I
can get. I want to badger the renderers to take note of the state of a
road before someone gets killed using an OSM map. Its only a matter of
time.

David



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



 Am 17/mar/2014 um 04:47 schrieb Dave Swarthout daveswarth...@gmail.com:
 
 A track is a track (a rough road or trail, unpaved, mostly un-maintained) 
 suitable for light use only, and is never a highway.


actually in osm a track is a way for agricultural and forestry purposes (if 
fishing had more importance in those areas where osm has begun, it would 
perhaps be included). It can be paved or not.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread Dave Swarthout

I knew I would be opening Pandora's box when I made those statements. As
for tracks, I should have prefaced my remarks with *In My Opinion* — I am
well aware that it's too late to change the current situation.

I would still argue that smoothness is a valuable parameter. Ignoring speed
limits and such, it determines how fast you can *comfortably* travel on a
particular highway, among other (more subjective) things. And I'm familiar
with the long thread about trafficability, to the extent that I could
follow all the various opinions and problems it exposed. This whole thing
is a tough nut to crack.

Which is one reason I suggested those other terms to describe stiffness
which I just can't get my head around. Stiffness just is not right for that
use. I dunno what I would rather do. Maybe as you suggest, it should simply
be removed.

Cheers,

Dave




On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:59 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.netwrote:

 Good on you Dave, I do like a good rant !

 On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 10:47 +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:


  Begin rantIMO tracktype should describe the physical
  characteristics of a track, not a highway, and it should have nothing
  to do with how well maintained it is.

 Great in an ideal world Dave. However, there are many highways in the
 world that are also 'tracks'.

 Recognising this, the OSM Lords have given us highway= tags to describe
 the purpose of a road. And tracktype= to describe the condition. Many
 cases, the tracktype= is not needed as its condition matches its
 purpose. But in situations where that is not the case, life threatening
 situations arise when a map user is not appropriately warned.

 I agree tracktype may not be ideal but its better that the rest and I
 think its too late to dream up a new one.

  .. those surfaces have an additional important characteristic
  called smoothness.

 'smoothness=' is not really appropriate as there are many, many roads
 that have issues beyond smoothness. I have seen tracks that appeared
 beautifully smooth but were beyond my ability !

  How a highway ever got a tracktype tag is beyond me and seems a big
  mistake.

 That was part of the original definition of tracktype= when it was
 approved.

   As far as smoothness is concerned, many have derided it as being
  too subjective.

 Look, lets be honest, just about anything in this world except the
 integer series has some subjective aspect. Lets get over it !
 

   say, particularly regarding surface stiffness, IMO the word

 Yes, Dave, I agree, Fernando's use of the word 'stiffness' is a bit
 dodgy. But thats a 'subjective' opinion.

   Perhaps soundness, permanence, or better yet, durability.
 No, I really think this is about how usable a road is given a set of
 vehicle and driver experience. We, on the AU mailing list discussed
 words like 'trafficability' and, from memory, some even worse ones !

 But I do want a good solution and I'll agree to an OK one if its all I
 can get. I want to badger the renderers to take note of the state of a
 road before someone gets killed using an OSM map. Its only a matter of
 time.

 David





-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread John Sturdy

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 1:44 PM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
 Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in 
 dirt road?

 Earthen road?

 Inquiring minds want to know.

Either compacted earth road (more specific) or unsurfaced road
(which I prefer); or green lane which generally means a public
vehicular right of way which is typically not deliberately surfaced
and is certainly not asphalted.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_lane_(road),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Laning#Green_laning, and
http://www.glass-uk.org/

__John

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread Fernando Trebien

But if the surface is rocky or stone, can it really be described as
surface of gravel mixed with a varying amount of sand, silt, and
clay (grade2) or even mixture of hard and soft materials (grade3)
and so on?

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Am 16/mar/2014 um 22:07 schrieb Fernando Trebien 
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

 One question: do you think that an almost flat natural rock path
 should be tracktype=grade1 (because it's closer to compacted) or
 tracktype=grade5 (because it's not constructed)?


 I think this depends how even/smooth it is, grade1 is not very
 probable in my experience (at least I haven't met this yet), given
 that tracktype is somehow an overall rating of a track, representing
 the subjective idea of the mapper how well you might pass with
 different vehicles and under different weather conditions, I'd make
 the tracktype in the case of bedrock dependent on the smoothness. 1 or
 2 if you can pass with your bike, 3 if you can pass with a bike under
 difficulties and 4 and 5 for almost or unpassable tracks.

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread Fernando Trebien

Two subjective opinions that agree create consensus, this is I
believe what we seek in OSM when defining tags. Replacing 'stiffness'
with something else is absolutely fine with me. I think the word we
replace it with will essentially be the definition of tracktype. I'm
sure I'm not the best person to do it since, not being a native, I'm
subject to the language barrier and to some translation noise that I
haven't been able to filter out yet (despite speaking English
fluently).

When I thought of 'stiffness', I was coming from the apparent focus of
grade descriptions on compaction/hardness (could these be better
words?). See these excerpts:

grade1: heavily compacted hardcore
grade2: unpaved (...) surface of gravel [a hard material] mixed with
varying amount of [soft materials] sand, silt and clay
grade3: even mixture of hard and soft materials
grade4: prominently with soil/sand/grass [soft materials], but with
some hard materials
grade5: lacking hard materials

So tracktype seems to be describing the mixture that makes up the
surface according to how hard or soft these materials are. We can then
guess how hard or soft the entire mixture is, and therefore how much
resistance and risks it would impose on the vehicle or even the
pedestrian.

To me, the idea a firm/soft mixture seems closely related to how well
maintained the track/road is, as mixtures that are not so
durable/steady/firm quickly wear down and look poorly maintained.
They are so closely related that they both could describe the
essentially same thing (where maintenance is observable and
hardness is the cause). Where they differ is in some exceptional
cases such as when we have surface=rocky/stone: suppose it is nearly
flat (smoothness=good for instance), could it ever be
tracktype=grade5, despite never being maintained? The idea of a
firm/soft mixture also seems closely related to how smooth (how flat
versus how irregular) one would expect the surface to be, even
though we can be surprised (as in the case of surface=rocky/stone),
for better or for worse, and this makes smoothness a necessary
additional attribute. If we know how irregular the surface is and how
easily it deforms when run over by a vehicle, we can more confidently
come up with a routing strategy that uses both characteristics to
limit speed to a safe level. And the same logic can be used for
rendering (to alert drivers on situations that require careful
driving).

These ideas led me to several articles in Wikipedia in search for
better descriptions (where I believed there could be better
descriptions for what we want to grasp with tracktype):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_mechanics#Shear_behavior:_stiffness_and_strength
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_compaction

And also to propose this to the OSRM team:
https://www.mail-archive.com/osrm-talk@openstreetmap.org/msg00393.html

For another topic: there is another characteristic that nobody has
pointed out yet that also influences the maximum safe travel speed,
and I think it could be mapped easily:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_slipperiness

This could be meaningful for some surfaces such as grass, mud and ice.

What I mean is that the various surface characteristics (current and
future) could be assigned limiting safe speeds for each value and
then routing software would simply have to decide what the combined
safe speed is by choosing the minimum, that is, by being restricted by
the characteristic that is most limiting in some particular
combination of surface characteristics.

Let me give you several examples using this interpretation I've just
described (not necessarily correct): if we have tracktype=grade1 (hard
material) + smoothness=bad, we can't travel fast safely because the
road is likely very bumpy. So smoothness is the limiting factor on
safe speed. If we have tracktype=grade5 + smoothness=excellent (a
perfectly flat road with no small rocks, only earth/soil), we still
can't safely travel fast because the soft material would slow us down,
specially if it has just rained (or, in some places, because snow is
melting). Now if we have tracktype=grade1+smoothness=excellent, it
doesn't matter much if the actual material is asphalt or concrete or
tarmac, we know it's hard and flat, so we can expect to be able to
safely travel fast. Conversely, if it's
tracktype=grade5+smoothness=horrible, we know it's loose and bumpy, so
we can't travel fast safely at all. Could you travel significantly
faster (and safely) if we had tracktype=grade1+smoothness=bad or if we
had tracktype=grade5+smoothness=excellent?

At the same time, many people seem ok with the surface tag to
describe the surface. Since I believe they map with the hope of using
this information in apps (rendering or routing, most of the time), I
believe they have expectations regarding surface flatness and material
rigidity for several values of the surface tag, and that's why they
don't think tracktype and smoothness are necessary. So we may try to
agree on what is

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread johnw




On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com 
wrote:

  Replacing 'stiffness'
 with something else is absolutely fine with me.


What about firmness? soundness?


Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-17 Thread Fernando Trebien

Firmness sounds good to me: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/firmness

I know that soundness means the same but has some additional
meanings (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/soundness),
firmness is more specific.

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:09 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:



 On Mar 18, 2014, at 1:35 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Replacing 'stiffness'
 with something else is absolutely fine with me.



 What about firmness? soundness?


 Javbw

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-16 Thread Fernando Trebien

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

 tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
 (regardless of material)



 I have always more thought of it how much it was constructed, while
 tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
 constructed at all) and the rest in between. Generally a tracktype=grade1
 should be easily navigable by bike or foot also after days of rain while for
 grade2 you would hope so and grade3 is not clear, 4 and 5 probably not. In
 the end it is a generalized hierarchical system that comprises several
 single characteristics to come to a summarizing tag value (and the single
 characteristics are not documented and may vary on individual basis).
 Somehow it still works as you can compare the values with other tracks in
 the same area.

Hm I think that someone on a city bike (not on a mountain bike) would
find tracktype=grade2 somewhat inconvenient, but still usable indeed.

Anyway, I'm making these questions because thinking of degree of
compaction (same as hardness maybe) makes tracktype essentially
independent from both smoothness and surface tags. You can then guess
more accurately things such as expected speed, comfort level, draft
forces, and the risk of getting bogged.

One question: do you think that an almost flat natural rock path
should be tracktype=grade1 (because it's closer to compacted) or
tracktype=grade5 (because it's not constructed)?




 - smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
 wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material)



 yes. in other words how smooth or even the surface is.



 - surface more closely represents the material structure, usually
 regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions)



 yes, surface is a mixture of the ~material (roughly classified) and in some
 cases the way of application / the overall structure (e.g. cobblestones).

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-16 Thread Fernando Trebien

Do you all agree with these wiki edits?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Atracktypediff=1002090oldid=992679

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Atracktypediff=1002096oldid=971383

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asmoothnessdiff=1002098oldid=905282

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asurfacediff=1002099oldid=970317

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

 2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

 tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
 (regardless of material)



 I have always more thought of it how much it was constructed, while
 tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
 constructed at all) and the rest in between. Generally a tracktype=grade1
 should be easily navigable by bike or foot also after days of rain while for
 grade2 you would hope so and grade3 is not clear, 4 and 5 probably not. In
 the end it is a generalized hierarchical system that comprises several
 single characteristics to come to a summarizing tag value (and the single
 characteristics are not documented and may vary on individual basis).
 Somehow it still works as you can compare the values with other tracks in
 the same area.

 Hm I think that someone on a city bike (not on a mountain bike) would
 find tracktype=grade2 somewhat inconvenient, but still usable indeed.

 Anyway, I'm making these questions because thinking of degree of
 compaction (same as hardness maybe) makes tracktype essentially
 independent from both smoothness and surface tags. You can then guess
 more accurately things such as expected speed, comfort level, draft
 forces, and the risk of getting bogged.

 One question: do you think that an almost flat natural rock path
 should be tracktype=grade1 (because it's closer to compacted) or
 tracktype=grade5 (because it's not constructed)?




 - smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
 wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material)



 yes. in other words how smooth or even the surface is.



 - surface more closely represents the material structure, usually
 regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions)



 yes, surface is a mixture of the ~material (roughly classified) and in some
 cases the way of application / the overall structure (e.g. cobblestones).

 cheers,
 Martin

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




 --
 Fernando Trebien
 +55 (51) 9962-5409

 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
 The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-16 Thread Dave Swarthout

Fernando,

Thanks for your efforts on this troublesome topic. I've been following the
conversation but have avoided adding any comments up to now because of the
complexity of any solutions I could offer.

Begin rant
I have problems with the whole relationship between tracktype, surface,
and smoothness and how they work, or do not work, together. For instance,
IMO tracktype should describe the physical characteristics of a track, not
a highway, and it should have nothing to do with how well maintained it
is. A track is a track (a rough road or trail, unpaved, mostly
un-maintained) suitable for light use only, and is never a highway. Both
tracks and highways, however, have surfaces whose character is often a
function of the material they're made from, and those surfaces have an
additional important characteristic called smoothness. How a highway ever
got a tracktype tag is beyond me and seems a big mistake. But it's been
used so many times it would be all but impossible to change it now. As far
as smoothness is concerned, many have derided it as being too subjective.
Yet, to me, it is a very important characteristic. How to measure it in any
meaningful way is another entire issue.
End rant

Moving on:

In the edited tracktype entry (first link above) where you
say, particularly regarding surface stiffness, IMO the word stiffness
is not a good term to describe a surface. Stiffness is resistance to
bending. Perhaps soundness, permanence, or better yet, durability.

Personally, I would remove the word paved from the definition of
tracktype=grade1 entirely (link 2 above). I know this would meet with tons
of argument but I would prefer something like:

- Solid. Usually a heavily compacted and durable surface.

The changes to smoothness and surface definitions are fine. I'm in total
agreement.

Cheers,

Dave (AlaskaDave)

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

Do you all agree with these wiki edits?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Atracktypediff=1002090oldid=992679

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Atracktypediff=1002096oldid=971383

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asmoothnessdiff=1002098oldid=905282

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Asurfacediff=1002099oldid=970317

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 6:07 PM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:

2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com
:

tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
(regardless of material)

I have always more thought of it how much it was constructed, while
tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
constructed at all) and the rest in between. Generally a
tracktype=grade1
should be easily navigable by bike or foot also after days of rain
while for
grade2 you would hope so and grade3 is not clear, 4 and 5 probably not.
In
the end it is a generalized hierarchical system that comprises several
single characteristics to come to a summarizing tag value (and the
single
characteristics are not documented and may vary on individual basis).
Somehow it still works as you can compare the values with other tracks
in
the same area.

Hm I think that someone on a city bike (not on a mountain bike) would
find tracktype=grade2 somewhat inconvenient, but still usable indeed.

One question: do you think that an almost flat natural rock path
should be tracktype=grade1 (because it's closer to compacted) or
tracktype=grade5 (because it's not constructed)?

- smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material)

yes. in other words how smooth or even the surface is.

- surface more closely represents the material structure, usually
regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions)

yes, surface is a mixture of the ~material (roughly classified) and in
some
cases the way of application / the overall structure (e.g.
cobblestones).

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months.

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-15 Thread Fernando Trebien

Please correct me if I'm wrong, after reading what you said, I think
that the point that I was missing was this:
- tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
(regardless of material)
- smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material)
- surface more closely represents the material structure, usually
regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions)

The surface (not the surface tag) can be fluffy and regular (some of
the dirt roads, beach sand, etc.), or hard and irregular (such as in a
road full of potholes). Fluffy or hard, it can be made of sand, clay,
earth, etc. and many of those would be collectively called dirt. If
this conclusion is correct:
- these tags are significantly more orthogonal than I thought they were
- this is worthy of several notes in the wiki
- it should simplify a lot of decisions in applications (for me)
- these values of surface almost always imply tracktype=grade1:
compacted, paved, asphalt, concrete, concrete_lanes, concrete_plates,
sett, cobblestone, paving_stones, grass paver
- in case we find something apparently contradictory as
surface=asphalt+tracktype=grade5 (meaning loose asphalt, which is
silly but possible), tracktype is probably more relevant to predict
surface quality
- other values of surface can have any tracktype
- all values of surface can present any level of smoothness (so
smoothness is completely independent, while tracktype and surface may
be thought of overlapping for several values)

The whole confusion surrounding these tags is that some surfaces are
usually highly compacted (concrete, asphalt, paving stones, etc.).
These would almost always get tracktype=grade1. Moreover, the
description for tracktype includes references to surface types, and
maybe it shouldn't (or maybe should just be phrased a little
differently).

In summary:
- tracktype tag=surface:compaction
- smoothness tag=surface:regularity
- surface tag=surface:material_structure

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:36 AM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:

On Mar 15, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com
wrote:

How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
where I live in Brazil.

That's really pretty!

Anyway, back to your place. I believe you'd call this a dirt road
leading into a private property:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704426,-116.720207,3a,75y,160.59h,81.43t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sH5Ez46TUHWIetR4uLSCy0Q!2e0

Honestly, I would say this is more of a gravel surface, or at least it has a
strong amount of gravel in it.

But you are exactly right - I would colloquially describe it as a dirt road.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.754457,-116.675043,3a,75y,244.08h,66.68t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sJhyTrxQnSp12qvq6uDJ_QA!2e0

is what I would say is dirt, grade 2

And here is a dirt grade 4 or 5.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.704654,-116.725304,3a,69.4y,194.94h,67.89t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1shSHA3wkceuNcBDfUVBL9CQ!2e0

Would you describe this surface as earth? Or maybe compacted?

I think sand would usually mean fluffy sand, such as in beach sand,
like here:
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=-29.347317,-49.729185spn=0.014065,0.047979t=mz=15layer=ccbll=-29.347303,-49.729198panoid=nxCzohwftvM2H6wO89EJngcbp=11,182.99,,0,3.15

That road looks really old!

Sand is hard, because a truly sand road is usually just river bottom, like
in a wadi (wash) or beach, because the road is usually defined by the
natural borders (the wadi's banks, shoreline, etc). I don't think there
could be many marked dune roads, they'd disappear before they were mapped.
but maybe my experience is limited.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.915195,-116.240605,3a,33.3y,14.3h,79.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s6SYOIDZphiH9EfbnOULxfw!2e0

you can see the white sand where the road starts from the turnout. you can
easily get stuck in it.

Here's a road in Brazil that probably fits the American definition of
dirt:

Exactly.

However, the surface here is compacted according to official
sources. It's hard to tell visually, but it's possible that the
mixture has been compressed.

Compacted what is the question. Tephra? Decomposed Granite? gravel? A
mixture of clay, sand, gravel, and organic bits called dirt ?

I assume almost any grade 1or 2 track is compacted - isn't that part of the
definition or grade 1 2?

but a whole lot of grade 3/4/5 maybe was once compacted, now it's just
falling apart/grass growing in the center.

Grade 3 from the wiki:

Unpaved track; an even mixture of hard and soft materials.

This is what I believe would be described as earth but not
compacted (also from official sources):

I wonder if you'd call this dirt too. '

yea, that's a dirt road alight - not sand and not little stones. I'm not
sure, but that looks a lot like like DG - decomposed granite - similar to
the red around my aunt's area in Jamul.

The distinction is quite
relevant for

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-15 Thread johnw

 
 
 In summary:
 - tracktype tag=surface:compaction
 - smoothness tag=surface:regularity
 - surface tag=surface:material_structure

That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but the 
others should be pretty straightforward.

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-15 Thread Fernando Trebien

It's not that straightforward to me since tracktype is described in
terms of surface materials, which can have widely varying levels of
compaction.

But great, I'll update the articles trying to make this distinction
clearer, then post back here my changes.

On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:


 In summary:
 - tracktype tag=surface:compaction
 - smoothness tag=surface:regularity
 - surface tag=surface:material_structure

 That is how I understand it. the Smoothness is the most subjective one, but 
 the others should be pretty straightforward.

 Javbw
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

2014-03-15 16:29 GMT+01:00 Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:

 tracktype is the degree of compaction of the material
 (regardless of material)



I have always more thought of it how much it was constructed, while
tracktype=1 is a paved road, 5 will be a track on grass (almost or not
constructed at all) and the rest in between. Generally a tracktype=grade1
should be easily navigable by bike or foot also after days of rain while
for grade2 you would hope so and grade3 is not clear, 4 and 5 probably not.
In the end it is a generalized hierarchical system that comprises several
single characteristics to come to a summarizing tag value (and the single
characteristics are not documented and may vary on individual basis).
Somehow it still works as you can compare the values with other tracks in
the same area.



 - smoothness is the degree of irregularity of the surface (for
 wheeled vehicles, also regardless of material)



yes. in other words how smooth or even the surface is.



 - surface more closely represents the material structure, usually
 regardless of other characteristics (with a few exceptions)



yes, surface is a mixture of the ~material (roughly classified) and in some
cases the way of application / the overall structure (e.g. cobblestones).

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



 Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:
 
 We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road



agreed, but would you say it has a dirt surface?

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Richard Welty

On 3/14/14 4:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

 Am 13/mar/2014 um 22:31 schrieb David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net:

 We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road


 agreed, but would you say it has a dirt surface?

i certainly wouldn't. i use unpaved as the more generic
term, and dirt or gravel when i know for sure.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread John Sturdy

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
 Here's my take from an Englishman!

 While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all

 From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
 is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
 clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
 is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
 that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
 avoid rolling in it.

Agreed --- I think of dirt in this sense as the American English
equivalent of what in British English is usually called earth or
soil.

__John (native British English speaker)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread John Willis

Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in dirt 
road?

Earthen road? 

Inquiring minds want to know. 

J

Sent from my iPad

 On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
 Here's my take from an Englishman!
 
 While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
 
 From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
 is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
 clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
 is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
 that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
 avoid rolling in it.
 
 Agreed --- I think of dirt in this sense as the American English
 equivalent of what in British English is usually called earth or
 soil.
 
 __John (native British English speaker)
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Philip Barnes

On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote:
 Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in 
 dirt road?
 
 Earthen road? 
 
 Inquiring minds want to know. 

There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads
are hard surfaced (although the quality can vary).

I have certainly never heard the term Earthen Road, it is probably one
of those instances where we should adopt the American Dirt, like we use
sidewalk. Most Brits will be familiar the term from movies. I have
driven on dirt roads in Canada, we have nothing like that.

Phil (trigpoint)

 
 J
 
 Sent from my iPad
 
  On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
  Here's my take from an Englishman!
  
  While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
  
  From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
  is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
  clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
  is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
  that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
  avoid rolling in it.
  
  Agreed --- I think of dirt in this sense as the American English
  equivalent of what in British English is usually called earth or
  soil.
  
  __John (native British English speaker)
  
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Fernando Trebien

Considering that surface is loosely defined (it can have any value)
and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something
significantly different from unpaved (for most practical
applications I can think of).

I think it hardly takes 1 extra second per way to arrive at a
description using some more specific widely accepted terminology such
as gravel, sand, earth, etc. which is much more useful. The only good
reason to encourage the use of a generic description is when you are
importing data and you are limited by the quality of the data source.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote:
 On Fri, 2014-03-14 at 22:44 +0900, John Willis wrote:
 Since OSM uses British English, what word would you pair with road, as in 
 dirt road?

 Earthen road?

 Inquiring minds want to know.

 There is no usage of dirt road in the UK most, if not all, public roads
 are hard surfaced (although the quality can vary).

 I have certainly never heard the term Earthen Road, it is probably one
 of those instances where we should adopt the American Dirt, like we use
 sidewalk. Most Brits will be familiar the term from movies. I have
 driven on dirt roads in Canada, we have nothing like that.

 Phil (trigpoint)


 J

 Sent from my iPad

  On Mar 14, 2014, at 10:18 PM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:09 PM, ael law_ence@ntlworld.com wrote:
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
  Here's my take from an Englishman!
 
  While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all
 
  From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
  is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
  clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
  is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
  that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
  avoid rolling in it.
 
  Agreed --- I think of dirt in this sense as the American English
  equivalent of what in British English is usually called earth or
  soil.
 
  __John (native British English speaker)
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Richard Welty

On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 Considering that surface is loosely defined (it can have any value)
 and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
 acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
 low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
 rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something
 significantly different from unpaved (for most practical
 applications I can think of).

i generally try to combine surface={dirt|gravel} with a value for
tracktype, if that helps at all.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Fernando Trebien

Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance), it
would be even better. (That's my point: dirt is good, something more
is specific such as compacted, earth, sand or clay is even
better). The editors help you with that by providing a list of common
surface values, you should simply try to stay away from paved/unpaved,
ground and dirt and only pick one of those when you can't decide which
of the others is a better value. Sometimes it's really impossible or
it would take too long to decide on a better value (say, if you're
covering a large area at once).

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
 On 3/14/14 3:11 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 Considering that surface is loosely defined (it can have any value)
 and no rules are imposed on it, I believe that ground and dirt are
 acceptable values, but not quite desirable, as their meaning is too
 low quality (too imprecise) for applications such as routing and even
 rendering of detailed surface maps. They both hardly mean something
 significantly different from unpaved (for most practical
 applications I can think of).

 i generally try to combine surface={dirt|gravel} with a value for
 tracktype, if that helps at all.

 richard

 --
 rwe...@averillpark.net
  Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
  OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
  Java - Web Applications - Search



 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Richard Welty

On 3/14/14 4:05 PM, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
 more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance), it
 would be even better. (That's my point: dirt is good, something more
 is specific such as compacted, earth, sand or clay is even
 better). 
in US usage, dirt is considered as different from gravel; i don't see the
confusion there. i'll grant that clay could be added to the list; we don't
tend to have clay surfaced roads in the northeast so much, but in large
parts of the southeast, it could make a difference.

but i seem to recall that we have had a discussion like this recently that
was ultimately unproductive. i would really would hope that we can
avoid a similarly protracted and unsuccessful discussion this time around.
i don't really understand the problem with using dirt as a value, i think
that it's pretty clear.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread johnw


On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
 more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance)

Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel. 

I live on a gravel road in Japan. My aunt lived on a dirt road in the US. She 
has since improved the road, and now it is a gravel road. 


https://www.google.com/maps/@32.6956552,-116.7504381,6466m/data=!3m1!1e3

This is the area around my aunt's house. Many of the driveways that were once 
dirt are now gravel or paved, due to new fire truck access laws.  

So most people have a gravel/asphalt/concrete driveway. but their property, and 
the backcountry of dry california is littered with dirt access roads that 
thread out into the countryside. 

Zoom in.  Drop into street view, though the dirt roads are hard to see from the 
street. There are plenty of concrete, asphalt, and gravel driveways, but there 
are also a ton of grade 2 graded and grade3 doubletrack dirt access roads. 

Not gravel, fine gravel, sand, asphalt, pavers, concrete, clay, cobblestones, 
grass pavers, clay, nor tephra - but dirt. 

Some kinds of roads are truly dirt roads, just as some are sand. 

The question is:

Do you use dirt earthen or soil to describe them? I vote for dirt.  
gravel is not an option. 


Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-14 Thread Fernando Trebien

How surprisingly similar the landscape in this area is to the place
where I live in Brazil. (If you're curious:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=Porto+Alegrell=-30.228926,-51.066213spn=0.013942,0.047979t=mhnear=Porto+Alegre,+Rio+Grande+do+Sul,+Brasilz=15layer=ccbll=-30.228942,-51.066222panoid=Usk3Tqr5RIfjqj4KVzlz7Qcbp=11,325.39,,0,7.66).

Would you describe this surface as earth? Or maybe compacted?

Here's a road in Brazil that probably fits the American definition of
dirt:
https://www.google.com/maps?q=dom+pedritohl=pt-BRll=-30.911356,-54.643936spn=0.110754,0.383835sll=-22.809099,-45.727844sspn=1.05575,1.535339hnear=Dom+Pedrito+-+Rio+Grande+do+Sul,+Brasilt=mz=12layer=ccbll=-30.911501,-54.644076panoid=PPforo0GCSl6Olx7vH8-_Qcbp=11,58.3,,0,13

However, the surface here is compacted according to official
sources. It's hard to tell visually, but it's possible that the
mixture has been compressed.

This is what I believe would be described as earth but not
compacted (also from official sources):
https://www.google.com/maps?q=Campo+Mour%C3%A3o+-+Paran%C3%A1,+Brasilhl=pt-BRie=UTF8ll=-24.223158,-52.403901spn=0.470893,1.535339sll=-22.231586,-42.793808sspn=0.265046,0.383835oq=campo+mour%C3%A3odoflg=ptkhnear=Campo+Mour%C3%A3o+-+Paran%C3%A1,+Brasilt=mz=10layer=ccbll=-24.223158,-52.403901panoid=0ClYdUrcz7I5OEaTGYF2hwcbp=11,183.99,,0,4.89

I wonder if you'd call this dirt too. The distinction is quite
relevant for calculation of routes: you can't travel as fast on earth
as can on compacted, and earth is much more likely to turn into sticky
mud that may get you bogged.

Finding a gravel road here was harder than I thought it would be. I
could only get this photo:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_8dyZBqNo6TI/TUv3KhRjRiI/AXs/jOA_pfv_IH0/s1600/tainhas+-+brita.jpg

It turns out that most preparations that include some gravel but
mostly soil here fit the definition of compacted quite closely.

I think that earth and soil are similar enough to stay only with
earth - but I'm not a native speaker.

I also wonder which names the British would give to each of these surfaces.

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:58 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:

On Mar 15, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com
wrote:

Well, any information you add does help. If you could use something
more specific than dirt (gravel is more precise, for instance)

Not when the road is dirt as opposed to gravel.

I live on a gravel road in Japan. My aunt lived on a dirt road in the US.
She has since improved the road, and now it is a gravel road.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.6956552,-116.7504381,6466m/data=!3m1!1e3

This is the area around my aunt's house. Many of the driveways that were
once dirt are now gravel or paved, due to new fire truck access laws.

So most people have a gravel/asphalt/concrete driveway. but their property,
and the backcountry of dry california is littered with dirt access roads
that thread out into the countryside.

Zoom in. Drop into street view, though the dirt roads are hard to see from
the street. There are plenty of concrete, asphalt, and gravel driveways, but
there are also a ton of grade 2 graded and grade3 doubletrack dirt
access roads.

Not gravel, fine gravel, sand, asphalt, pavers, concrete, clay,
cobblestones, grass pavers, clay, nor tephra - but dirt.

Some kinds of roads are truly dirt roads, just as some are sand.

The question is:

Do you use dirt earthen or soil to describe them? I vote for dirt.
gravel is not an option.

Javbw

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Dave Swarthout

I'll weigh in with the common American conception of dirt road. It is a
general term meaning unpaved. As Jaakko correctly pints out, some dirt
roads are really quite well built. For an example close to my Alaska home,
the long lonely road leading to the Prudhoe Bay oilfields, see these images
of the Dalton Highway:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=offsite=imghptbm=ischsource=hpbiw=2133bih=1185q=dalton+highway+alaskaoq=dalton+highway

In my neighborhood of Homer, Alaska, indeed in most of rural Alaska,
residential roads are generally unpaved. Due to the severe winter
conditions, paving roads in Alaska is very expensive and once paved they
require frequent, expensive maintenance. I tag them as surface=gravel to
agree with OSM definitions but in everyday conversations they're called
dirt roads.

To construct such a road involves removing all the topsoil above the frost
line, piling truckloads of gravel base over the subsoil, putting down a
layer of geo-textile fabric to keep the road base stable during spring
breakup, and then putting more truckloads of a specially formulated
mixture of clay, gravel and sand on top and grading it smooth. Once the
highway is open for use, this grading process is repeated several times
during each summer season as rain and traffic regularly pound potholes
into it. The best time to drive on these roads is in winter after the first
snow has hardened into a smooth layer — no potholes, no dust, smooth
running.

As for earth or ground — I've never encountered those terms as
descriptions of road surfaces. Many dirt roads in the United States are not
as good as those in Alaska because of the expense involved and because
winters are so much less severe. They are really just dirt — an unpaved
track whose composition is a mix of clay and sand and gravel, whatever is
there to begin with plus some topping to make it less slippery in rain.

Regards,

AlaskaDave

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
jaa...@helleranta.com wrote:

My (non-native) English understanding / ear says that dirt is a general
name for all unpaved roads. This may include any loose material, really
ranging from soil that just happened to be there to natural or processed
sand to industrially produced gravel, possibly with an added layer of
loose material spread on top of the gravel to make it less loose (eg rock
ash). So, as far as I classify / understand, dirt roads _may_ be quite well
built.

Now, earth and ground both give me a strong connotation of a road (or a
borderline track) that is practically not built. Or at least the surface
material is not processed sand or gravel and certainly it doesn't have a
finishing layer such as rock ash.
This said I would also consider earth=ground surfaced roads as being
clearly more prone to bad condition after rains (or melted snow, etc).

So, I would say that earth and ground are synonyms but dirt is the broader
concept. In fact I would see dirt pretty much synonymous to unpaved - but
would hesitate to nuke one of those over another as I would not be
surprised if a bunch of people would see this differently.

How do others here understand these terms?

Cheers,
-Jaakko
.. Whose family's summer cottage in Finland has a pretty well
self-constructed 1.5km strip of dirt road leading to it with sand base,
gravel top, rock ash finishing layer.

--
Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391 * http://about.me/jaakkoh
Hello,

There are 3 values for surface (ground, dirt and earth) that are
described as probably equivalent in the wiki. The pictures tell a
slightly different story: ground seems to allow the presence of
grass along with usage marks (car or pedestrian tracks), as does
earth, whereas dirt seems to include no grass and include the
possibility of mud after rainfall.

TagInfo shows that earth is significantly less used than the other
two. Could we officially recommend against that value then? Having so
many equal things makes translation (and teaching) much harder than
necessary, and I don't see when an application would differentiate
between these values.

I tried searching for their definitions in English dictionaries, but
they point to each other as synonyms. Earth is sometimes cited as a
poetic description of soil. Ground could describe anything from
soil to harder surfaces. I believe the most accurate description
would actually be something along the lines of bare soil (confirmed
by comparing results in Google Images).

--
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--
Dave Swarthout

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread fly

On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
 Here's my take from an Englishman!
 
 While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
 (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most
 dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.
 
 Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando,
 these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well
 mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.

How do you tag hiking paths which do not lead across grass or solid rock ?

I use ground in these cases and if the surfaces changes every few metres
between natural underground (from tree needles to rocks)

 However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than
 roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't
 imagine what the distinction may be.

Exactly, how about unpaved sports` pitch and tracks (clay or dirt ?).

 In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this
 context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt
 to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface. 
 Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.

That is one major problem of vague descriptions and of overlapping meanings.

I would always use unpaved.

I consider dirt as a mixture of earth, mud and little rocks or thin
gravel where I am not able to distinguish between earth or mud and where
it is not ground as it differs from the surrounding underground.

My 2 ct from a non-native speaker.
fly


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
 Here's my take from an Englishman!

 While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
 (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most
 dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.

 Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando,
 these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well
 mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.

 How do you tag hiking paths which do not lead across grass or solid rock ?

 I use ground in these cases and if the surfaces changes every few metres
 between natural underground (from tree needles to rocks)

 However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than
 roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't
 imagine what the distinction may be.

 Exactly, how about unpaved sports` pitch and tracks (clay or dirt ?).

 In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this
 context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt
 to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface.
 Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.

 That is one major problem of vague descriptions and of overlapping meanings.

 I would always use unpaved.

 I consider dirt as a mixture of earth, mud and little rocks or thin
 gravel where I am not able to distinguish between earth or mud and where
 it is not ground as it differs from the surrounding underground.

 My 2 ct from a non-native speaker.
 fly


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread fly

On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?

Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
does not have to be.

All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
tags after updating the descriptions but this will not that easy with
existing tags in common use.

fly

 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:16 AM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 13.03.2014 10:34, jonathan wrote:
 Here's my take from an Englishman!

 While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all public
 (adopted) roads in the UK are paved in some way shape or form.  Most
 dirt roads are probably private roads, farm tracks or paths.

 Now, back to the original question.  I totally agree with Fernando,
 these classifications are confusing. In English English they pretty well
 mean the same thing. We should look to rationalise them.

 How do you tag hiking paths which do not lead across grass or solid rock ?

 I use ground in these cases and if the surfaces changes every few metres
 between natural underground (from tree needles to rocks)

 However, remember the surface tag is used elsewhere other than
 roads/tracks where there may be some distinction, although I can't
 imagine what the distinction may be.

 Exactly, how about unpaved sports` pitch and tracks (clay or dirt ?).

 In general English usage there meanings rely on context but in this
 context of describing a base surface to something I would go with dirt
 to mean a loose surface, unpaved, water permeable, degradable surface.
 Ground and earth are just too vague to be of any use.

 That is one major problem of vague descriptions and of overlapping meanings.

 I would always use unpaved.

 I consider dirt as a mixture of earth, mud and little rocks or thin
 gravel where I am not able to distinguish between earth or mud and where
 it is not ground as it differs from the surrounding underground.

 My 2 ct from a non-native speaker.
 fly


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread ael

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 09:34:24AM +, jonathan wrote:
 Here's my take from an Englishman!
 
 While the term dirt road is used here, it is much rarer as all

From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
avoid rolling in it.

However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
usage and dialects from a few centuries ago

I tend to tag with ground where there are sections of soil (which
may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
and no one tag seems really descriptive.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Steve Doerr


On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:

 From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
avoid rolling in it.

However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
usage and dialects from a few centuries ago

I tend to tag with ground where there are sections of soil (which
may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
and no one tag seems really descriptive.




For me (British English), 'ground' isn't a type of surface at all: it's 
usually preceded by the definite article ('the ground') and means 'the 
surface of the earth' (where 'earth' means the planet), but not 
necessarily in a natural state: a paved area can be 'the ground'. Inside 
a building, though, you talk of 'the floor'.


'Earth' as a substance is much the same as 'soil', except that soil 
makes one think specifically of earth as a growing medium for plants.


There may be a 'false friend' in some languages, as 'the ground' roughly 
corresponds to 'le sol' in French, which nevertheless sometimes has the 
narrower meaning of 'soil'.


--
Steve

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Georg Feddern


Am 13.03.2014 15:56, schrieb fly:

On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:

But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?

Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
does not have to be.

All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
tags after updating the descriptions but this will not that easy with
existing tags in common use.


aehm, well - and which one would you get rid of?

Some times ago I remember a likewise identical discussion at the german 
forum.

AFAIK:

ground
Used for ways where the underground consists of different and often 
changing parts like rock, earth, vegetation (generic value) - as you say 
above.


earth
Used for ways where the underground consists of - well, earth (natural 
sand) constantly.


dirt
See above - the term seems to be outside of OSM used for a man made / 
constructed work - which inside OSM seems to be the (defined) value 
compacted.


So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a useful 
value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .


Georg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Richard Welty

On 3/13/14 12:02 PM, Georg Feddern wrote:

 So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a
 useful value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .
where as for my mapping in the US, dirt is the only
one that i use, and common usage is to refer to these
roads as dirt roads by pretty much everyone.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS  IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Russell Deffner

My two cents:

dirt maybe applies only to road surface
ground human impacted 'earth'
earth as natural as remains depending on location

=Russ

-Original Message-
From: Georg Feddern [mailto:o...@bavarianmallet.de] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:03 AM
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

Am 13.03.2014 15:56, schrieb fly:
 On 13.03.2014 15:37, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 But do you think that earth and ground are different kinds of surface?
 Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
 does not have to be.

 All together, I think we could get rid of at least one out of the three
 tags after updating the descriptions but this will not that easy with
 existing tags in common use.

aehm, well - and which one would you get rid of?

Some times ago I remember a likewise identical discussion at the german 
forum.
AFAIK:

ground
Used for ways where the underground consists of different and often 
changing parts like rock, earth, vegetation (generic value) - as you say 
above.

earth
Used for ways where the underground consists of - well, earth (natural 
sand) constantly.

dirt
See above - the term seems to be outside of OSM used for a man made / 
constructed work - which inside OSM seems to be the (defined) value 
compacted.

So I would get rid of dirt, but keep 'earth' beside 'ground' as a useful 
value (smooth walking on hiking trails) .

Georg

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

In Portuguese, we have the same false friend as French, and I'd guess
Spanish and Italian have it too. At least for Portuguese, literal
translations of these terms (ground, dirt, earth and soil) correspond
exactly to your description, Steve. If we translate literally,
however, we're gonna see people tagging as dirt any place with trash
accumulation, and most people would pick earth for the pictures in
the wiki. Currently, earth is the least used value (only 7k
instances), whereas ground and dirt are used 500k and 350k times
respectively.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:

  From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
 is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
 clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
 is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
 that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
 avoid rolling in it.

 However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
 post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
 English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
 usage and dialects from a few centuries ago

 I tend to tag with ground where there are sections of soil (which
 may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
 rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
 paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
 and no one tag seems really descriptive.



 For me (British English), 'ground' isn't a type of surface at all: it's
 usually preceded by the definite article ('the ground') and means 'the
 surface of the earth' (where 'earth' means the planet), but not necessarily
 in a natural state: a paved area can be 'the ground'. Inside a building,
 though, you talk of 'the floor'.

 'Earth' as a substance is much the same as 'soil', except that soil makes
 one think specifically of earth as a growing medium for plants.

 There may be a 'false friend' in some languages, as 'the ground' roughly
 corresponds to 'le sol' in French, which nevertheless sometimes has the
 narrower meaning of 'soil'.

 --
 Steve


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Tod Fitch

While I'd probably colloquially call it a dirt road, your description of the
construction sounds suspiciously like the construction developed by John
MacAdam and may well be considered to be surfaced road by a highway engineer.
In the early days of motoring that type of road was considered to be paved or
improved. A bit later it might have been described as water bound macadam
to distinguish it from pavings where petroleum products were used to help
stabilize the surface (bituminous or tar bound macadam (tarmac)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macadam

I suspect that getting OSM mappers to tag it as surface=macadam would be futile
(only 17 instances in tag info). So your surface=gravel (716,032 instances) is
probably the best that can be hoped for.

-Tod

On Mar 13, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Dave Swarthout wrote:

In my neighborhood of Homer, Alaska, indeed in most of rural Alaska,
residential roads are generally unpaved. Due to the severe winter conditions,
paving roads in Alaska is very expensive and once paved they require
frequent, expensive maintenance. I tag them as surface=gravel to agree with
OSM definitions but in everyday conversations they're called dirt roads.

To construct such a road involves removing all the topsoil above the frost
line, piling truckloads of gravel base over the subsoil, putting down a layer
of geo-textile fabric to keep the road base stable during spring breakup,
and then putting more truckloads of a specially formulated mixture of clay,
gravel and sand on top and grading it smooth. Once the highway is open for
use, this grading process is repeated several times during each summer
season as rain and traffic regularly pound potholes into it. The best time
to drive on these roads is in winter after the first snow has hardened into a
smooth layer — no potholes, no dust, smooth running.

As for earth or ground — I've never encountered those terms as
descriptions of road surfaces. Many dirt roads in the United States are not
as good as those in Alaska because of the expense involved and because
winters are so much less severe. They are really just dirt — an unpaved track
whose composition is a mix of clay and sand and gravel, whatever is there to
begin with plus some topping to make it less slippery in rain.

Regards,

AlaskaDave

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Jaakko Helleranta.com
jaa...@helleranta.com wrote:
My (non-native) English understanding / ear says that dirt is a general name
for all unpaved roads. This may include any loose material, really ranging
from soil that just happened to be there to natural or processed sand to
industrially produced gravel, possibly with an added layer of loose
material spread on top of the gravel to make it less loose (eg rock ash). So,
as far as I classify / understand, dirt roads _may_ be quite well built.

Now, earth and ground both give me a strong connotation of a road (or a
borderline track) that is practically not built. Or at least the surface
material is not processed sand or gravel and certainly it doesn't have a
finishing layer such as rock ash.
This said I would also consider earth=ground surfaced roads as being clearly
more prone to bad condition after rains (or melted snow, etc).

So, I would say that earth and ground are synonyms but dirt is the broader
concept. In fact I would see dirt pretty much synonymous to unpaved - but
would hesitate to nuke one of those over another as I would not be surprised
if a bunch of people would see this differently.

How do others here understand these terms?

Cheers,
-Jaakko
.. Whose family's summer cottage in Finland has a pretty well
self-constructed 1.5km strip of dirt road leading to it with sand base,
gravel top, rock ash finishing layer.

--
Sent from my Android device. * +505-8845-3391 * http://about.me/jaakkoh

Hello,

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

It seems that:
- if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
right?
- the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)

We may add notes to the wiki asking users to choose more specific descriptions.

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Fernando Trebien
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 In Portuguese, we have the same false friend as French, and I'd guess
 Spanish and Italian have it too. At least for Portuguese, literal
 translations of these terms (ground, dirt, earth and soil) correspond
 exactly to your description, Steve. If we translate literally,
 however, we're gonna see people tagging as dirt any place with trash
 accumulation, and most people would pick earth for the pictures in
 the wiki. Currently, earth is the least used value (only 7k
 instances), whereas ground and dirt are used 500k and 350k times
 respectively.

 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Steve Doerr doerr.step...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 13/03/2014 15:09, ael wrote:

  From another English person, I would say that dirt in British English
 is understood to mean the substance which causes something to be not
 clean. That is it is much wider in meaning than soil or earth.  But it
 is almost never used to mean soil or earth under your feet, although
 that might be described as dirty or even dirt if telling a child to
 avoid rolling in it.

 However, maybe there are places where this is not true given Jonathan's
 post, but whenever I hear it used that way, it has come from American
 English. Of course, some American English reflects some old British
 usage and dialects from a few centuries ago

 I tend to tag with ground where there are sections of soil (which
 may be covered with vegetation for some parts of the year) and maybe be
 rocky with sections of sand and gravel. I have just been mapping some
 paths and tracks on Bodmin Moor which have all these characteristics
 and no one tag seems really descriptive.



 For me (British English), 'ground' isn't a type of surface at all: it's
 usually preceded by the definite article ('the ground') and means 'the
 surface of the earth' (where 'earth' means the planet), but not necessarily
 in a natural state: a paved area can be 'the ground'. Inside a building,
 though, you talk of 'the floor'.

 'Earth' as a substance is much the same as 'soil', except that soil makes
 one think specifically of earth as a growing medium for plants.

 There may be a 'false friend' in some languages, as 'the ground' roughly
 corresponds to 'le sol' in French, which nevertheless sometimes has the
 narrower meaning of 'soil'.

 --
 Steve


 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



 --
 Fernando Trebien
 +55 (51) 9962-5409

 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
 The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Murry McEntire

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien 
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems that:
 - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
 paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
 surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
 right?
 - the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
 broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
 compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)


Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
I walk the ground, breaking ground (as in construction or farming),
above ground, or below ground; it would seem to fit the Oxford
definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
marshy ground. (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of the floor
of a room.)

Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
surface which may include ruts through vegetation.

Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
conflicting.
Ground is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
surface.

As to American usage of dirt, the example is poor -- if you stick with
the noun, not the related adjective, saying your pants have dirt on them
would likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel.
To me, a dirt road is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.).
It may be compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel
as a gravel road.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

So:
- earth is a close synonym of soil (though it's not exactly the same thing)
- ground could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
vegetation (say, grass)
- dirt could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
wiki)

So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
unpaved.

Could dirt involve mud?

Could ground involve rock? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
murry.mcent...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

 It seems that:
 - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
 paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
 surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
 right?
 - the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
 broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
 compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)


 Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
 I walk the ground, breaking ground (as in construction or farming),
 above ground, or below ground; it would seem to fit the Oxford
 definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
 gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
 marshy ground. (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
 natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of the floor of
 a room.)

 Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
 is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
 not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
 surface which may include ruts through vegetation.

 Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
 conflicting.
 Ground is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
 meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
 common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
 surface.

 As to American usage of dirt, the example is poor -- if you stick with the
 noun, not the related adjective, saying your pants have dirt on them would
 likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, a
 dirt road is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may be
 compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
 gravel road.

 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



 Am 13/mar/2014 um 15:56 schrieb fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com:
 
 Well, I would consider earth as earth where ground could be earth but
 does not have to be.


+1, both are probably an indication that the way is travelled frequently 
enough/compacted to some level that prevents vegetation (ok, this surely 
depends on the climate)

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



 Am 13/mar/2014 um 20:57 schrieb Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com:
 
 So:
 - earth is a close synonym of soil (though it's not exactly the same 
 thing)
 - ground could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
 vegetation (say, grass)


IMHO if it's grass then the mapper will most likely have used grass and not 
ground, even if the broader meaning of the word includes all kind of surface to 
stand on


 - dirt could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
 may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
 wiki)


+1, dirt should not include gravel


 
 So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
 ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
 unpaved.


earth (in the meaning of soil) is not very specific, it is actually a mixture 
of organic and inorganic substances in different grain sizes, while clay sand 
and gravel are basically the same material (minerals=not organic) in quite 
specific and well defined grain sizes


 
 Could dirt involve mud?


mud is also not very specific, basically it is soil or inorganic finer grained 
substances with water


 
 Could ground involve rock?


IMHO yes, but if the surface is only rock you'd better use rock as value 

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread David Bannon


In Australia, we refer to a dirt road meaning just about any unsealed
road. Very rarely use earth or ground. Ground sounds to me more like
the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !

We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
through its normal maintenance cycle, the gravel can become almost
invisible, lost in the dust or mud if it rains.

At the risk of complicating the matter, I'd rather distinguish between
made and unmade dirt roads. A road that has been graded and made
dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is made - usually an easy
drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
holes much quicker and the surface can deliver surprises.

So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground' are really not very
informative terms.

David


On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 16:57 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 So:
 - earth is a close synonym of soil (though it's not exactly the same 
 thing)
 - ground could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
 vegetation (say, grass)
 - dirt could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
 may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
 wiki)
 
 So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
 ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
 unpaved.
 
 Could dirt involve mud?
 
 Could ground involve rock? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
 this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
 
 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
 murry.mcent...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
  fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  It seems that:
  - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
  paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
  surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
  right?
  - the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
  broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
  compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
 
 
  Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
  I walk the ground, breaking ground (as in construction or farming),
  above ground, or below ground; it would seem to fit the Oxford
  definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
  gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
  marshy ground. (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
  natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of the floor of
  a room.)
 
  Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
  is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
  not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
  surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
 
  Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
  conflicting.
  Ground is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
  meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
  common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
  surface.
 
  As to American usage of dirt, the example is poor -- if you stick with the
  noun, not the related adjective, saying your pants have dirt on them would
  likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, a
  dirt road is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may be
  compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
  gravel road.
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

Well, I've updated the descriptions in the wiki for ground, dirt and
earth: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurfacediff=1000653oldid=978363

Does it look ok?

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:

 In Australia, we refer to a dirt road meaning just about any unsealed
 road. Very rarely use earth or ground. Ground sounds to me more like
 the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !

 We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
 through its normal maintenance cycle, the gravel can become almost
 invisible, lost in the dust or mud if it rains.

 At the risk of complicating the matter, I'd rather distinguish between
 made and unmade dirt roads. A road that has been graded and made
 dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is made - usually an easy
 drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
 holes much quicker and the surface can deliver surprises.

 So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground' are really not very
 informative terms.

 David


 On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 16:57 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
 So:
 - earth is a close synonym of soil (though it's not exactly the same 
 thing)
 - ground could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
 vegetation (say, grass)
 - dirt could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
 may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
 wiki)

 So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
 ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
 unpaved.

 Could dirt involve mud?

 Could ground involve rock? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
 this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)

 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
 murry.mcent...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
  fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  It seems that:
  - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
  paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
  surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
  right?
  - the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
  broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
  compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
 
 
  Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
  I walk the ground, breaking ground (as in construction or farming),
  above ground, or below ground; it would seem to fit the Oxford
  definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
  gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
  marshy ground. (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
  natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of the floor 
  of
  a room.)
 
  Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
  is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
  not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
  surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
 
  Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
  conflicting.
  Ground is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
  meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
  common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
  surface.
 
  As to American usage of dirt, the example is poor -- if you stick with 
  the
  noun, not the related adjective, saying your pants have dirt on them 
  would
  likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, 
  a
  dirt road is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may 
  be
  compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
  gravel road.
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 






 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread Dave Swarthout

I agree with David Bannon when he says  'earth' and 'ground' are really
not very informative terms when it comes to road surfaces but not what he
says about dirt, and with most of what Martin said in his recent post, but
especially that a dirt road does not contain gravel even though we
colloquially apply the term dirt road to ones with a gravel surface. A true
dirt road is one that runs atop normal ground and its surface is not
prepared or engineered in any special way.

The dirt roads I described in Alaska are more properly described by your
proposal as compacted or fine gravel in that they employ a specially
engineered composition of small stones, sand, clay and whatever, compacted
and smoothed to offer a smooth and *relatively* weatherproof surface.

There are a lot of mud roads in Alaska as well. This is a dirt road that
runs through swampy, boggy areas and typically should not be attempted in
an ordinary automobile but rather with 4WD or all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

In the proposal there is this phrase in the description of gravel that I
would have you remove: Broken/crushed rock with sharp edges, known as
ballast on railways The ballast I typically see on railways could not be
driven on comfortably. The stones are much too big and have, as you
correctly state, sharp edges. I would be in favor of something along the
lines of

similar to compacted above but less carefully engineered, more loosely
arranged

Thanks for the good work you're doing with this proposal. I think it will
be a big help in describing surfaces. Now if we could only just deal with
the issue of smoothness or trafficability in such a straightforward
manner LOL

Dave


On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Fernando Trebien 
fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well, I've updated the descriptions in the wiki for ground, dirt and
 earth:
 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AMap_Features%3Asurfacediff=1000653oldid=978363

 Does it look ok?

 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:31 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net
 wrote:
 
  In Australia, we refer to a dirt road meaning just about any unsealed
  road. Very rarely use earth or ground. Ground sounds to me more like
  the level than the surface, I'd argue most roads are at ground level !
 
  We often describe a gravel road as a dirt road, as such a road goes
  through its normal maintenance cycle, the gravel can become almost
  invisible, lost in the dust or mud if it rains.
 
  At the risk of complicating the matter, I'd rather distinguish between
  made and unmade dirt roads. A road that has been graded and made
  dome shaped (as the Roman's taught us) is made - usually an easy
  drive. Some drivers get nervous on unmade roads as they develop pot
  holes much quicker and the surface can deliver surprises.
 
  So I suggest 'dirt', 'earth' and 'ground' are really not very
  informative terms.
 
  David
 
 
  On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 16:57 -0300, Fernando Trebien wrote:
  So:
  - earth is a close synonym of soil (though it's not exactly the
 same thing)
  - ground could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
  vegetation (say, grass)
  - dirt could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
  may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
  wiki)
 
  So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
  ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
  unpaved.
 
  Could dirt involve mud?
 
  Could ground involve rock? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
  this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
 
  On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
  murry.mcent...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  
  
   On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
   fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
  
   It seems that:
   - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
   paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
   surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without
 vegetation,
   right?
   - the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
   broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
   compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
  
  
   Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When
 speaking of
   I walk the ground, breaking ground (as in construction or
 farming),
   above ground, or below ground; it would seem to fit the Oxford
   definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary
 also
   gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such
 as
   marshy ground. (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
   natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of the
 floor of
   a room.)
  
   Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder
 what
   is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world
 that is
   not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
   surface which

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth

2014-03-13 Thread johnw

+1 for dirt. There is a distinct difference between a dirt and gravel roads, as 
well as sand. 

In the US, dirt roads - especially fire and forestry roads - are maintained for 
private and emergency access. Most of these roads are maintained by grading, 
but are not surfaced with gravel in any way. 
The ground may technically be a mixture of naturally occurring rocks and clay, 
dirt and decomposed granite. but If you asked people to name it, would be 
called dirt. 

Dirt road is also a colloquial definition for these types of roads, so maybe 
I'm biased.  soil road sounds bizarre, and ground road is just plain bad 
English. But all the other roads (gravel, cobblestone, asphalt, concrete, 
paved, etc) sound normal. 

Dirt turns into mud with rain, so unless you are talking about a road through a 
marsh, one would expect a dirt road to be somewhat muddy when it rains.

because of the lack of rain, there are thousands and thousands of true dirt 
roads in drier climates. 
Wetter climates often gravel the road until it sinks into the mud and they add 
more - a gravel road. 


A true mud road would have to be mud most of the year, regardless of weather. 
sounds like a grade 5 track too. 

roads in the desert are often in wadis, so they are truly sand roads. 

There are gravel roads. and there are certainly sand roads. but there are also 
a lot of dirt roads as well.   

- Ground is something you walk over, dig unto, or fly over = the surface. Moles 
live underground, not underdirt or undersoil.

- Soil is what you put in pots for planting flowers - prepared mixture of dirt, 
fertilizer, and ingredients for gardening/farming use = AKA Potting soil - 
not potting dirt or potting ground


On Mar 14, 2014, at 4:57 AM, Fernando Trebien fernando.treb...@gmail.com 
wrote:

 So:
 - earth is a close synonym of soil (though it's not exactly the same 
 thing)
 - ground could refer to: soil/earth (no vegetation), soil/earth +
 vegetation (say, grass)
 - dirt could refer to: soil/earth, clay, sand, arguably gravel (it
 may not be correct but it may be a good idea to clarify this in the
 wiki)
 
 So earth, grass, clay, sand, and gravel, are much more specific than
 ground and dirt, both of which are just slightly more specific than
 unpaved.
 
 Could dirt involve mud?
 
 Could ground involve rock? (Similar, but likely flatter, than
 this: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock)
 
 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Murry McEntire
 murry.mcent...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Fernando Trebien
 fernando.treb...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 It seems that:
 - if a surface can be grass or paved, asphalt, concrete,
 paving_stones, etc., then it seems the only reason to state the
 surface consists of ground is if it's unpaved and without vegetation,
 right?
 - the American usage of dirt (as in your car will get dirty) is a
 broad description for 3 more specific values: earth, gravel and
 compacted (different from loose gravel or soil)
 
 
 Ground has multiple meanings some of which are very broad. When speaking of
 I walk the ground, breaking ground (as in construction or farming),
 above ground, or below ground; it would seem to fit the Oxford
 definition of: the solid surface of the earth (world). The dictionary also
 gives a definition of ground as a generic term to be qualified, such as
 marshy ground. (And to muddle things, when you think it might mean a
 natural surface - the Oxford gives the (British) definition of the floor of
 a room.)
 
 Upon seeing surface=ground for a road, my first reaction is to wonder what
 is meant by that? Upon pondering, it is a land surface of the world that is
 not raised or improved but may be worn and could be almost any natural
 surface which may include ruts through vegetation.
 
 Of course I could ponder more and give another dozen definitions; many
 conflicting.
 Ground is a poor term because it has so many similar, but still different
 meanings (very ambiguous) when used to describe a surface; with its most
 common meaning being very general and not describing the material of the
 surface.
 
 As to American usage of dirt, the example is poor -- if you stick with the
 noun, not the related adjective, saying your pants have dirt on them would
 likely be interpreted as loam, clay, soil, or the like; not gravel. To me, a
 dirt road is most often a natural soil (clay, loam, sand, etc.). It may be
 compacted or graded. I would refer to a road surfaced with gravel as a
 gravel road.
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 Fernando Trebien
 +55 (51) 9962-5409
 
 The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months. (Moore's law)
 The speed of software halves every 18 months. (Gates' law)
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] surface=ground/dirt/earth